Route-Align-Verify for Functional Correctness in Code Generation

Large language models (LLMs) have substantially improved code generation, yet achieving strong functional correctness remains difficult, especially for heterogeneous programming tasks where a single prompting strategy and a single directly generated output are often insufficient. In this paper, we present RAV, a lightweight and modular framework that improves code generation with a fixed backbone model through three coordinated stages: Route, which applies task-aware prompt routing before generation; Align, which reduces the mismatch between fine-tuning prompts and inference-time prompts through aligned LoRA adaptation; and Verify, which selects the final output by executing multiple candidates against visible public tests. We evaluate RAV on the MBPP benchmark under both the sanitized and full settings. The complete RAV pipeline achieves the best performance among all evaluated configurations, reaching 0.8911 on MBPP Sanitized and 0.8520 on MBPP Full. Compared with the base model, these results represent improvements of 6.35 and 9.92 percentage points, respectively. Component-wise ablation experiments further show that task-aware routing and aligned adaptation become substantially more effective when combined with execution-based verification. Additional robustness and contamination analyses support the reliability of the observed improvements. Overall, the results indicate that functional correctness in code generation can be meaningfully improved without modifying the backbone architecture, by jointly optimizing how tasks are prompted, how the model is adapted, and how final outputs are selected.

TaPR: Test-Aware Policy Refinement for Feedback-Conditioned Code Generation

Multi-turn code agents rely on execution feedback to repair incorrect programs, yet standard reinforcement learning paradigms optimize and evaluate policy performance primarily using single-shot outcome rewards. This misalignment conflates initial code generation with feedback-driven refinement, discards granular execution signals across intermediate turns, and fails to evaluate whether the policy actually acquires self-repair capabilities. We propose Test-aware Policy Refinement (TaPR), a framework that transforms execution feedback into a dense per-turn test-pass-ratio reward under a consistent multi-turn interaction protocol. Across six models on 219 code-generation problems from LiveCodeBench, TaPR improves the pooled three-turn success rate (Pass@3) by 2.44 percentage points. In the predefined 7B/8B high-headroom slice, pooled accuracy increases from 30.25% to 33.56% (+3.31 pp), with 42 improvements and 13 regressions in paired trials. On a matched Qwen3-8B ablation, the dense reward supplies nonzero feedback in all of the first ten steps and reaches a higher Hard-subset peak than outcome-only GRPO within the tested budget, although GRPO nearly matches pooled Pass@3 by step 300. Our primary contribution is a reward-decomposition framework and a turn-aware evaluation protocol that decouple first-shot generation quality from multi-turn repair competence.

CURE: Local Uncertainty Repair for Block-Parallel Speculative Decoding

Speculative decoding mitigates the latency of sequential generation in autoregressive Large Language Models (LLMs) by interleaving draft generation with target verification. However, existing parallel drafting backends often suffer from rapid accuracy degradation over long horizons, leading to high rejection rates during verification and suboptimal wall-clock speedups. We observe that drafting errors are not uniformly distributed but typically stem from localized high-uncertainty tokens that destabilize downstream generation trajectories. Motivated by this token error pattern, we propose CURE, a budget-aware dynamic repair tree designed to repair errors at uncertainty focal points without incurring prohibitive tree-verification overheads. Specifically, our method uses predictive confidence margins to dynamically locate candidate error tokens within a block-parallel draft, expands bounded repair paths only at these fragile nodes, and employs a novel repair resynchronization mechanism to realign draft states post-verification. Evaluations on code-generation benchmarks (HumanEval, MBPP, and LiveCodeBench-lite) and mathematical reasoning benchmark (GSM8K) demonstrate that CURE increases the average accepted length by 4.2-7.5% over parallel baselines without repair, translating to an end-to-end speedup of $2.66-3.49\times$ over target-only decoding. Furthermore, we provide a plug-and-play repair module compatible with standard parallel drafting frameworks. We also characterize the trade-off between draft compute and verification efficiency.

Paraphrase-Induced Output-Mode Collapse: When LLMs Break Character Under Semantically Equivalent Inputs

When the substantive content of a request is rewritten, do large language models still answer in the format the original task asked for? We find that they often do not, even at temperature zero. On a 150-query evaluation over five compact 2025-era LLMs and four task types, we observe a systematic failure mode we call prompt-variant output-mode collapse: when a closed-form prompt asks for a bare label or a single choice token, content-preserving prompt variants can push the model into conversational prose, the requested format dissolves, and exact-match evaluation pipelines silently misjudge the result. To make this measurable, we release PARACONSIST, a 900-prompt benchmark of 150 base queries with five lexical, syntactic, and semantic-expansion prompt variants each, and a Semantic Consistency Score that decomposes prompt-variant robustness into answer consistency, sentence-BERT semantic similarity, and length stability. Under a whole-word answer-set match, only ~22% of closed-form variant responses preserve the ground-truth label inside their output, while ~78% drift away from the answer space entirely. In our pool, the dominant predictor of collapse is task structure rather than model identity, with model differentiation jointly carried by answer consistency and length stability. Robustness audits should therefore track response-mode preservation as a first-class reliability target alongside answer accuracy.

When Does LLM Self-Correction Help? A Control-Theoretic Markov Diagnostic and Verify-First Intervention

Iterative self-correction is widely used in agentic LLM systems, but when repeated refinement helps versus hurts remains unclear. We frame self-correction as a cybernetic feedback loop in which the same language model serves as both controller and plant, and use a two-state Markov model over {Correct, Incorrect} to operationalize a simple deployment diagnostic: iterate only when ECR/EIR > Acc/(1 - Acc). In this view, EIR functions as a stability margin and prompting functions as lightweight controller design. Across 7 models and 3 datasets (GSM8K, MATH, StrategyQA), we find a sharp near-zero EIR threshold (<= 0.5%) separating beneficial from harmful self-correction. Only o3-mini (+3.4 pp, EIR = 0%), Claude Opus 4.6 (+0.6 pp, EIR ~ 0.2%), and o4-mini (+/-0 pp) remain non-degrading; GPT-5 degrades by -1.8 pp. A verify-first prompt ablation provides causal evidence that this threshold is actionable through prompting alone: on GPT-4o-mini it reduces EIR from 2% to 0% and turns -6.2 pp degradation into +0.2 pp (paired McNemar p < 10^-4), while producing little change on already-sub-threshold models. ASC further illustrates the stopping trade-off: it halts harmful refinement but incurs a 3.8 pp confidence-elicitation cost. Overall, the paper argues that self-correction should be treated not as a default behavior, but as a control decision governed by measurable error dynamics.