Correctness isnt Efficiency: Runtime Memory Divergence in LLM-Generated Code

Large language models (LLMs) can generate programs that pass unit tests, but passing tests does not guarantee reliable runtime behavior. We find that different correct solutions to the same task can show very different memory and performance patterns, which can lead to hidden operational risks. We present a framework to measure execution-time memory stability across multiple correct generations. At the solution level, we introduce Dynamic Mean Pairwise Distance (DMPD), which uses Dynamic Time Warping to compare the shapes of memory-usage traces after converting them into Monotonic Peak Profiles (MPPs) to reduce transient noise. Aggregating DMPD across tasks yields a model-level Model Instability Score (MIS). Experiments on BigOBench and CodeContests show substantial runtime divergence among correct solutions. Instability often increases with higher sampling temperature even when pass@1 improves. We also observe correlations between our stability measures and software engineering indicators such as cognitive and cyclomatic complexity, suggesting links between operational behavior and maintainability. Our results support stability-aware selection among passing candidates in CI/CD to reduce operational risk without sacrificing correctness. Artifacts are available.

Dynamic Stability of LLM-Generated Code

Current evaluations of LLMs for code generation emphasize functional correctness, overlooking the fact that functionally correct solutions can differ significantly in algorithmic complexity. For instance, an $(O(n^2))$ versus $(O(n \log n))$ sorting algorithm may yield similar output but incur vastly different performance costs in production. This discrepancy reveals a critical limitation in current evaluation methods: they fail to capture the behavioral and performance diversity among correct solutions. To address this, we introduce a principled framework for evaluating the dynamic stability of generated code. We propose two metrics derived from opcode distributions: Static Canonical Trace Divergence (SCTD), which captures algorithmic structure diversity across generated solutions, and Dynamic Canonical Trace Divergence (DCTD), which quantifies runtime behavioral variance. Their ratio, the Behavioral Expression Factor (BEF), serves as a diagnostic signal: it indicates critical runtime instability when BEF $\ll$ 1 and functional redundancy when BEF $\gg$ 1. Empirical results on BigOBench and CodeContests show that state-of-the-art LLMs exhibit significant algorithmic variance even among functionally correct outputs. Notably, increasing sampling temperature improves pass@1 rates but degrades stability, revealing an unrecognized trade-off: searching for correct solutions in diverse output spaces introduces a "penalty of instability" between correctness and behavioral consistency. Our findings call for stability-aware objectives in code generation and new benchmarks with asymptotic test cases for robust, real-world LLM evaluation.