Information-Gain Rewards over Diversity-Pruned Tests: GT-Anchored Verifier Co-Training for Reliable Code Generation

Recently, Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) and Test-Time Scaling (TTS) have advanced LLM code generation through executable verification. Yet Ground-Truth Unit Tests (GT UTs) remain a bottleneck: SOTA RLVR methods require them for costly training, while existing TTS methods lose competitiveness without them. This motivates GT-free TTS, where existing methods directly use self-generated UTs to refine and select code candidates. Yet such UTs are often noisy or spuriously coupled with wrong code, and UT quality in turn cannot be validated without reliable code. The key challenge is therefore to jointly improve both. To this end, we present CoSPlay, a GT-free, training-free framework that jointly improves codes and UTs through cooperative self-play. It first explores diverse solution ideas and identifies their potential failure modes to produce discriminative UT ideas. It then uses bidirectional pass-count signals from the Code-UT execution matrix to iteratively prune or fix weak codes and refresh or replace unreliable UTs, letting the two pools co-evolve. Finally, when multiple codes remain tied at the highest pass count, it picks the final code from the largest output-consensus cluster, since correct codes agree on the same inputs while wrong codes diverge. Experiments on four challenging benchmarks show that CoSPlay on Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct improves average BoN from 22.1% to 33.2% and UT accuracy from 14.6% to 78.3%, matching or surpassing the RLVR model CURE-7B. When applied to CURE-7B, it further improves BoN by 5.7%. CoSPlay also generalizes across diverse backbones and outperforms GT-free TTS baselines under comparable token budgets, with continued gains as the budget scales up. These results suggest a scalable inference strategy for competitive code generation without any GT data.

Reinforcement learning for code generation relies on verifiable rewards from unit test pass rates. Yet high-quality test suites are scarce, existing datasets offer limited coverage, and static rewards fail to adapt as models improve. Recent self-play methods unify code and test generation in a single model, but face a inherent dilemma: white-box access leads to self-collusion where the model produces trivial tests for easy rewards, yet black-box restriction yields generic tests that miss implementation-specific bugs. We introduce Code-A1, an adversarial co-evolution framework that jointly optimizes a Code LLM and a Test LLM with opposing objectives. The Code LLM is rewarded for passing more tests, while the Test LLM is rewarded for exposing more defects. This architectural separation eliminates self-collusion risks and safely enables white-box test generation, where the Test LLM can inspect candidate code to craft targeted adversarial tests. We further introduce a Mistake Book mechanism for experience replay and a composite reward balancing test validity with adversarial difficulty. Experiments on Qwen2.5-Coder models demonstrate that Code-A1 achieves code generation performance matching or exceeding models trained on human-annotated tests, while significantly improving test generation capability.

Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) is particularly well suited to code generation because generated programs can be objectively evaluated through execution. Execution also provides behavioral information that can be reused as additional supervision. The Synergistic Policy and Reward Co-Evolving Framework (SPARK), originally proposed for reasoning tasks, exploits this idea by recycling training rollouts and their evaluation results to train a model not only to generate solutions but also to evaluate and improve them. We investigate whether this policy-reward co-evolution approach transfers effectively to code generation and whether execution-grounded reflection provides an additional source of self-improvement. We compare SPARK-style rollout recycling with execution-only Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) using Qwen2.5-Coder-3B-Instruct. Our results do not support either hypothesis under the configuration tested. Although co-evolution improves training performance, these gains do not generalize to held-out problems. Compared at the same stage of training, rollout recycling produces roughly 34x greater KL divergence from the reference policy than execution-only GRPO. Over training, trained tokens per GRPO sequence fall from 185 to 86 as training pass rate increases, while held-out performance declines or fails to sustain early gains. We characterize these patterns as single-adapter policy drift: the shared trainable parameters increasingly depart from pretrained code-generation behavior without corresponding gains in generalization. The results show that higher training reward alone is not evidence of generalizable code self-improvement and highlight the importance of held-out evaluation and drift diagnostics.