pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.23491 · v2 · pith:C7A5BAATnew · submitted 2026-05-22 · 💻 cs.LG · cs.AI· cs.CL

CoSPlay: Cooperative Self-Play at Test-Time with Self-Generated Code and Unit Test

Zhangyi Hu , Chenhui Liu , Tian Huang , Jindong Li , Yang Yang , Jiemin Wu , Zining Zhong , Menglin Yang
show 1 more author
Yutao Yue
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-30 15:52 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.LG cs.AIcs.CL
keywords code generationtest-time scalingself-playunit testsLLM inferencecooperative refinementground-truth free
0
0 comments X

The pith

CoSPlay lets LLMs jointly refine self-generated code and unit tests at test time without ground truth, matching RLVR performance.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper introduces CoSPlay as a training-free and ground-truth-free method for test-time scaling in LLM code generation. It addresses the circular problem where unreliable unit tests cannot validate code and vice versa by letting the two pools co-evolve. Diverse code ideas are generated first, then their failure modes guide unit test creation. Bidirectional pass counts from the execution matrix drive iterative pruning, and output consensus breaks final ties. If the mechanism works, it enables competitive code generation using only the model's own outputs and removes dependence on expensive external verification data.

Core claim

CoSPlay is 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.

What carries the argument

Bidirectional pass-count signals from the Code-UT execution matrix for mutual pruning of weak codes and unreliable unit tests, combined with output-consensus clustering for tie resolution.

If this is right

  • CoSPlay raises average Best-of-N accuracy from 22.1% to 33.2% on Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct.
  • Unit test accuracy rises from 14.6% to 78.3% on the same model.
  • It matches or surpasses the RLVR model CURE-7B without any training.
  • Applying it to CURE-7B yields a further 5.7% Best-of-N gain.
  • The gains hold across backbones and continue as token budget increases.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same co-evolution pattern could extend to other verifiable generation tasks such as theorem proving where partial correctness signals exist.
  • Internal consistency among model outputs may substitute for external oracles in some inference settings.
  • Widespread adoption could lower the data and compute needed to reach high performance in code models.
  • The method opens a path to purely inference-time improvement loops that do not require separate training stages.

Load-bearing premise

Bidirectional pass-count signals from the Code-UT execution matrix can reliably distinguish and prune weak codes from unreliable unit tests without external ground truth, and output-consensus clustering selects the correct code when pass counts tie.

What would settle it

A controlled experiment on a benchmark with hidden ground truth where the method's final selected code matches the hidden ground truth no more often than a random choice among the top pass-count candidates.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.23491 by Chenhui Liu, Jiemin Wu, Jindong Li, Menglin Yang, Tian Huang, Yang Yang, Yutao Yue, Zhangyi Hu, Zining Zhong.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Performance comparison between our Training-free and GT-free CoSPlay and other RLVR methods that need costly weight updating (AZR-7B-Coder 0k) or massive GT data (AceCoder-7B-Rule 22k, AceCoder-7B-RM 329k, CURE-7B 4.5k). *Equal contribution. †Corresponding author. arXiv:2605.23491v1 [cs.LG] 22 May 2026 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Our motivation: achieving high accuracy without any Ground-Truth and weight updating. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Method Overview. Given a coding problem, CoSPlay first explores solution-oriented code ideas and derives [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Round-0 pass-count analysis. Panels (a-b) show the density distributions of UT and code pass counts for correct and wrong candidates, while panels (c-d) show GT correctness as a function of pass count. some otherwise useful probes before self-play begins. We therefore supplement the pool with random valid inputs sampled directly from the problem statement, which provide broader sanity checks under the same… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (a) The code Pass@1 vs other TTS methods. (b) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: (a) shows the generalization of CoSPlay across diverse base and RL models. (b) compares UT pass-count distributions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Execution-consensus and pass-count analysis. Panels (a-c) show the density distributions of cluster size, UT pass count, and code pass count for correct and wrong candidates, where vertical lines indicate the corresponding mean values. Panels (d-f) show that GT correctness increases with larger cluster sizes and higher pass counts. These results support the use of execution-consensus clusters and execution… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Evolution of pass-count distributions during self-play. Both UT and code pass-count distributions progressively shift toward higher-support regions across self-play rounds, suggesting that execution-matrix-driven self-play gradually concentrates support on more reliable UTs and stronger code candidates. Livebench Livebench LiveCodebench LiveCodebench CodeContests CodeContests CodeForces CodeForces CosPlay-… view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: t-SNE visualization of clusters. Across four datasets, correct codes tend to form compact high-density clusters, whereas incorrect codes are more scattered, supporting execution-consensus clustering as effective GT-free selection signal. obtain higher scores for both CoSPlay-7B and CoSPlay-14B, indicating that our scoring rule preserves the largest-cluster intuition while adapting it to runtime-error setti… view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: (a) shows the scalability of CoSPlay with candidate-pool size. (b) shows the trade-off between UT diversity and UT [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Token cost versus Pass@1 of TTS methods and CoSPlay on Qwen2.5-Instruct models. For each baseline method, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Comparison of the evolution of UT rank over self-play rounds between the ablation w/o random UT initialization [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: UT pass count (number of code candidates passing each UT) distributions at the UT initialization stage, comparing [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Effect of the number of random valid inputs used for execution-consensus clustering. We vary the number of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Density distributions of cluster sizes for correct (blue) and wrong (red) code candidates during self-play on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_15.png] view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Density distributions of cluster sizes for correct (blue) and wrong (red) code candidates during self-play on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_16.png] view at source ↗
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Density distributions of cluster sizes for correct (blue) and wrong (red) code candidates during self-play on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p032_17.png] view at source ↗
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Density distributions of cluster sizes for correct (blue) and wrong (red) code candidates during self-play on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p032_18.png] view at source ↗
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Density distributions of cluster sizes for correct (blue) and wrong (red) code candidates during self-play on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p032_19.png] view at source ↗
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: Density distributions of cluster sizes for correct (blue) and wrong (red) code candidates during self-play on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p033_20.png] view at source ↗
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: Density distributions of cluster sizes for correct (blue) and wrong (red) code candidates during self-play on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p033_21.png] view at source ↗
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: Density distributions of cluster sizes for correct (blue) and wrong (red) code candidates during self-play on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p033_22.png] view at source ↗
Figure 23
Figure 23. Figure 23: Density distributions of UT pass counts for correct (blue) and wrong (red) UT candidates during self-play on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p034_23.png] view at source ↗
Figure 24
Figure 24. Figure 24: Density distributions of UT pass counts for correct (blue) and wrong (red) UT candidates during self-play on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p034_24.png] view at source ↗
Figure 25
Figure 25. Figure 25: Density distributions of UT pass counts for correct (blue) and wrong (red) UT candidates during self-play on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p035_25.png] view at source ↗
Figure 26
Figure 26. Figure 26: Density distributions of UT pass counts for correct (blue) and wrong (red) UT candidates during self-play on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p035_26.png] view at source ↗
Figure 27
Figure 27. Figure 27: Density distributions of UT pass counts for correct (blue) and wrong (red) UT candidates during self-play on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p035_27.png] view at source ↗
Figure 28
Figure 28. Figure 28: Density distributions of UT pass counts for correct (blue) and wrong (red) UT candidates during self-play on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p036_28.png] view at source ↗
Figure 29
Figure 29. Figure 29: Density distributions of UT pass counts for correct (blue) and wrong (red) UT candidates during self-play on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p036_29.png] view at source ↗
Figure 30
Figure 30. Figure 30: Density distributions of UT pass counts for correct (blue) and wrong (red) UT candidates during self-play on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p036_30.png] view at source ↗
Figure 31
Figure 31. Figure 31: Density distributions of code pass counts for correct (blue) and incorrect (red) code candidates during self-play on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p037_31.png] view at source ↗
Figure 32
Figure 32. Figure 32: Density distributions of code pass counts for correct (blue) and incorrect (red) code candidates during self-play on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p037_32.png] view at source ↗
Figure 33
Figure 33. Figure 33: Density distributions of code pass counts for correct (blue) and incorrect (red) code candidates during self-play on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p038_33.png] view at source ↗
Figure 34
Figure 34. Figure 34: Density distributions of code pass counts for correct (blue) and incorrect (red) code candidates during self-play on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p038_34.png] view at source ↗
Figure 35
Figure 35. Figure 35: Density distributions of code pass counts for correct (blue) and incorrect (red) code candidates during self-play on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p038_35.png] view at source ↗
Figure 36
Figure 36. Figure 36: Density distributions of code pass counts for correct (blue) and incorrect (red) code candidates during self-play on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p039_36.png] view at source ↗
Figure 37
Figure 37. Figure 37: Density distributions of code pass counts for correct (blue) and incorrect (red) code candidates during self-play on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p039_37.png] view at source ↗
Figure 38
Figure 38. Figure 38: Density distributions of code pass counts for correct (blue) and incorrect (red) code candidates during self-play on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p039_38.png] view at source ↗
Figure 39
Figure 39. Figure 39: The relationship between cluster size and average code true accuracy during self-play on CodeContests for both 7B and 14B models. The top row [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p040_39.png] view at source ↗
Figure 40
Figure 40. Figure 40: The relationship between cluster size and average code true accuracy during self-play on CodeForces for both 7B and 14B models. The top row [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p040_40.png] view at source ↗
Figure 41
Figure 41. Figure 41: The relationship between cluster size and average code true accuracy during self-play on LiveBench for both 7B and 14B models. The top row [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p041_41.png] view at source ↗
Figure 42
Figure 42. Figure 42: The relationship between cluster size and average code true accuracy during self-play on LiveCodeBench for both 7B and 14B models. The top row [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p041_42.png] view at source ↗
Figure 43
Figure 43. Figure 43: The relationship between UT pass counts on generated codes and average true accuracy for both 7B and 14B models on CodeContests. The top row [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p042_43.png] view at source ↗
Figure 44
Figure 44. Figure 44: The relationship between UT pass counts on generated codes and average true accuracy for both 7B and 14B models on CodeForces. The top row [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p042_44.png] view at source ↗
Figure 45
Figure 45. Figure 45: The relationship between UT pass counts on generated codes and average true accuracy for both 7B and 14B models on LiveBench. The top row [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p042_45.png] view at source ↗
Figure 46
Figure 46. Figure 46: The relationship between UT pass counts on generated codes and average true accuracy for both 7B and 14B models on LiveCodeBench. The top [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p043_46.png] view at source ↗
Figure 47
Figure 47. Figure 47: The relationship between code pass counts and average true accuracy for both 7B and 14B models on CodeContests. The top row shows Round 0-2, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p043_47.png] view at source ↗
Figure 48
Figure 48. Figure 48: The relationship between code pass counts and average true accuracy for both 7B and 14B models on CodeForces. The top row shows Round 0-2, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p044_48.png] view at source ↗
Figure 49
Figure 49. Figure 49: The relationship between code pass counts and average true accuracy for both 7B and 14B models on LiveBench. The top row shows Round 0-2, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p044_49.png] view at source ↗
Figure 50
Figure 50. Figure 50: The relationship between code pass counts and average true accuracy for both 7B and 14B models on LiveCodeBench. The top row shows Round [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p044_50.png] view at source ↗
Figure 51
Figure 51. Figure 51: Evolution of UT pass-count distributions during self-play with the 7B model. Curves show per-round density changes across four benchmarks. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p045_51.png] view at source ↗
Figure 52
Figure 52. Figure 52: Evolution of UT pass-count distributions during self-play with the 14B model. Curves show per-round density changes across four benchmarks. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p045_52.png] view at source ↗
Figure 53
Figure 53. Figure 53: Evolution of code pass-count distributions during self-play with the 7B model. Curves show per-round density changes across four benchmarks. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p045_53.png] view at source ↗
Figure 54
Figure 54. Figure 54: Evolution of code pass-count distributions during self-play with the 14B model. Curves show per-round density changes across four benchmarks. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p045_54.png] view at source ↗
Figure 55
Figure 55. Figure 55: Evolution of Signal Accuracy across iterative self-play rounds. 0 1 2 3 4 5 Round 0.32 0.34 0.36 0.38 0.40 0.42 BoN Accuracy CodeContests 0 1 2 3 4 5 Round 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.20 0.22 0.24 CodeForces 0 1 2 3 4 5 Round 0.48 0.50 0.52 0.54 0.56 0.58 LiveBench 0 1 2 3 4 5 Round 0.375 0.400 0.425 0.450 0.475 0.500 0.525 0.550 LiveCodeBench 7B 14B 7B + Cluster 14B + Cluster [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/ful… view at source ↗
Figure 56
Figure 56. Figure 56: Evolution of Best-of-N (BoN) accuracy evaluated on four benchmarks during self-play rounds. 0 1 2 3 4 5 Round 0.18 0.20 0.22 0.24 0.26 0.28 0.30 0.32 Code Accuracy CodeContests 0 1 2 3 4 5 Round 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 CodeForces 0 1 2 3 4 5 Round 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 LiveBench 0 1 2 3 4 5 Round 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 LiveCodeBench 7B 14B [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p046_56.png] view at source ↗
Figure 57
Figure 57. Figure 57: Evolution of Code Accuracy across iterative self-play rounds. 0 1 2 3 4 5 Round 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75 UT Accuracy CodeContests 0 1 2 3 4 5 Round 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 CodeForces 0 1 2 3 4 5 Round 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 LiveBench 0 1 2 3 4 5 Round 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75 LiveCodeBench 7B 14B [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p046_57.png] view at source ↗
Figure 58
Figure 58. Figure 58: Evolution of Unit Test (UT) Accuracy across iterative self-play rounds T Detailed metrics evolution during self-play stage T.1 Detailed Signal accuracy evolution during self-play rounds [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p046_58.png] view at source ↗
Figure 59
Figure 59. Figure 59: Case study of successful code fix. 53 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p053_59.png] view at source ↗
Figure 60
Figure 60. Figure 60: Execution matrices demonstrating the resolution of Code–UT coupling in CoSPlay. Each row represents a generated code candidate, and each [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p058_60.png] view at source ↗
Figure 61
Figure 61. Figure 61: Case study of Code-UT coupling. In the 7B case, the before panel shows a clean Code-UT coupling pattern: the highlighted wrong code passes the highlighted low-pass UT, creating a false positive that can inflate the pass count of an wrong solution. After regeneration, the corresponding orange UT column no longer accepts the same wrong code, thereby removing this spurious agreement. In the 14B case, the hig… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

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.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper introduces CoSPlay, a training-free, ground-truth-free test-time scaling framework for LLM code generation. It generates diverse code and unit-test candidates, then uses iterative bidirectional pass-count signals from the Code-UT execution matrix to prune weak codes and unreliable tests, allowing the two pools to co-evolve. When pass counts tie, it selects the code from the largest output-consensus cluster. Experiments claim that applying CoSPlay to Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct raises average BoN from 22.1% to 33.2% and UT accuracy from 14.6% to 78.3%, matching or exceeding the RLVR baseline CURE-7B, with further gains when applied to CURE-7B itself; the method also scales with token budget across backbones.

Significance. If the empirical claims and the correctness of the co-evolution loop hold, the work offers a practical inference-time alternative to RLVR that removes dependence on ground-truth unit tests while achieving competitive or superior performance. The bidirectional pruning plus consensus tie-breaker is a concrete, reproducible mechanism that could be adopted by other TTS pipelines.

major comments (3)
  1. [Method description of iterative pruning / Code-UT matrix update] The central pruning step (bidirectional pass-count signals from the Code-UT execution matrix) is load-bearing for the GT-free claim, yet the manuscript provides no analysis or counter-example showing that the iteration cannot converge to a mutually consistent but incorrect code-UT cluster. The skeptic concern is not addressed: when wrong codes share failure signatures, the corresponding wrong UTs can achieve comparable aggregate pass counts, and the output-consensus tie-breaker is applied only after pruning, so it cannot correct an earlier mis-pruning. A concrete test (e.g., controlled injection of consistent error modes on a synthetic benchmark) is required.
  2. [Experiments / main results table] Table reporting the main results (BoN and UT accuracy gains on four benchmarks) does not include ablations that isolate the contribution of the bidirectional pruning versus the final consensus clustering, nor does it report failure cases where the matrix-based selection chose an incorrect code. Without these, it is impossible to verify that the reported 11-point BoN lift is attributable to the claimed mechanism rather than to increased sampling diversity alone.
  3. [Experiments / comparison to CURE-7B] The claim that CoSPlay matches or surpasses CURE-7B (an RLVR model trained with GT UTs) is central, but the manuscript does not report whether the same token budget was used for the RLVR baseline or whether CURE-7B was allowed additional inference-time scaling. This comparison is therefore not yet on equal footing.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Method] Notation for the Code-UT execution matrix (row/column sums) is introduced without an explicit equation or pseudocode listing the update rules; adding a compact algorithm box would improve reproducibility.
  2. [Abstract / Experiments] The abstract states “continued gains as the budget scales up,” but the corresponding scaling plot or table is not referenced in the text; ensure every quantitative claim points to a specific figure or table.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback on our manuscript. We address each of the major comments below, providing clarifications and proposing revisions to strengthen the paper.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Method description of iterative pruning / Code-UT matrix update] The central pruning step (bidirectional pass-count signals from the Code-UT execution matrix) is load-bearing for the GT-free claim, yet the manuscript provides no analysis or counter-example showing that the iteration cannot converge to a mutually consistent but incorrect code-UT cluster. The skeptic concern is not addressed: when wrong codes share failure signatures, the corresponding wrong UTs can achieve comparable aggregate pass counts, and the output-consensus tie-breaker is applied only after pruning, so it cannot correct an earlier mis-pruning. A concrete test (e.g., controlled injection of consistent error modes on a synthetic benchmark) is required.

    Authors: We agree that an analysis of potential convergence to incorrect but consistent clusters is important for validating the GT-free claim. The current manuscript relies on empirical results across benchmarks but does not include synthetic counter-examples or failure mode analysis for the iterative loop. To address this, we will add a new experiment section with a synthetic benchmark involving injected consistent error modes. This will demonstrate the pruning dynamics and show how the bidirectional signals and consensus selection interact in controlled settings. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Experiments / main results table] Table reporting the main results (BoN and UT accuracy gains on four benchmarks) does not include ablations that isolate the contribution of the bidirectional pruning versus the final consensus clustering, nor does it report failure cases where the matrix-based selection chose an incorrect code. Without these, it is impossible to verify that the reported 11-point BoN lift is attributable to the claimed mechanism rather than to increased sampling diversity alone.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the main results table lacks component ablations and failure case reporting. The experiments focus on end-to-end performance, but to isolate the bidirectional pruning from consensus clustering, we will include additional ablation tables in the revised manuscript. We will also add analysis of cases where incorrect codes were selected, discussing the conditions under which the method fails. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Experiments / comparison to CURE-7B] The claim that CoSPlay matches or surpasses CURE-7B (an RLVR model trained with GT UTs) is central, but the manuscript does not report whether the same token budget was used for the RLVR baseline or whether CURE-7B was allowed additional inference-time scaling. This comparison is therefore not yet on equal footing.

    Authors: This is a fair point regarding the fairness of the comparison. The manuscript states that comparisons are under comparable token budgets, but does not provide the specific numbers for CURE-7B inference. In the revision, we will explicitly report the token budgets used for CoSPlay and for evaluating CURE-7B, ensuring the comparison is on equal footing. If discrepancies exist, we will adjust the experiments accordingly. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation grounded in external execution signals

full rationale

The CoSPlay method generates candidate codes and unit tests, executes them to populate a Code-UT matrix, then uses row/column pass-count sums for iterative pruning and an output-consensus tie-breaker. These signals originate from actual program execution against the generated artifacts rather than from model logits, fitted parameters, or prior self-citations. No equation or step reduces the claimed improvement to a self-definition, a renamed input, or a load-bearing self-citation chain. The framework therefore remains self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review yields no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities; the method implicitly assumes that execution feedback is sufficient to separate signal from noise in both pools.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5915 in / 1170 out tokens · 28023 ms · 2026-06-30T15:52:20.496110+00:00 · methodology

Review history (2 revisions) →

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

80 extracted references

  1. [1]

    Jinze Bai, Shuai Bai, Yunfei Chu, Zeyu Cui, Kai Dang, Xiaodong Deng, Yang Fan, Wenbin Ge, Yu Han, Fei Huang, Binyuan Hui, and et. al. Qwen technical report.arXiv, 2023

    2023

  2. [2]

    Pütz, and Thomas Bartz-Beielstein

    Vekil Bekmyradov, Noah C. Pütz, and Thomas Bartz-Beielstein. Llms taking shortcuts in test generation: A study with sap hana and leveldb.arXiv, 2026

    2026

  3. [3]

    Le, Christopher Ré, and Azalia Mirhoseini

    Bradley Brown, Jordan Juravsky, Ryan Ehrlich, Ronald Clark, Quoc V . Le, Christopher Ré, and Azalia Mirhoseini. Large language monkeys: Scaling inference compute with repeated sampling.arXiv, 2024

    2024

  4. [4]

    Codet: Code generation with generated tests

    Bei Chen, Fengji Zhang, Anh Nguyen, Daoguang Zan, Zeqi Lin, Jian-Guang Lou, and Weizhu Chen. Codet: Code generation with generated tests. InICLR, 2023

    2023

  5. [5]

    Revisit self-debugging with self-generated tests for code generation

    Xiancai Chen, Zhengwei Tao, Kechi Zhang, Changzhi Zhou, Xinyu Zhang, Wanli Gu, Yuanpeng He, Mengdi Zhang, Xunliang Cai, Haiyan Zhao, and Zhi Jin. Revisit self-debugging with self-generated tests for code generation. InACL Long, 2025

    2025

  6. [6]

    Daya Guo, Dejian Yang, Haowei Zhang, Junxiao Song, Peiyi Wang, Qihao Zhu, Runxin Xu, Ruoyu Zhang, Shirong Ma, Xiao Bi, Xiaokang Zhang, and et. al. Deepseek-r1 incentivizes reasoning in llms through reinforcement learning.Nature, 2025

    2025

  7. [7]

    Reasoning with language model is planning with world model

    Shibo Hao, Yi Gu, Haodi Ma, Joshua Jiahua Hong, Zhen Wang, Daisy Zhe Wang, and Zhiting Hu. Reasoning with language model is planning with world model. InEMNLP, 2023

    2023

  8. [8]

    Repair-r1: Better test before repair.arXiv, 2025

    Haichuan Hu, Xiaochen Xie, and Quanjun Zhang. Repair-r1: Better test before repair.arXiv, 2025

    2025

  9. [9]

    Enhancing large language models in coding through multi- perspective self-consistency

    Baizhou Huang, Shuai Lu, Xiaojun Wan, and Nan Duan. Enhancing large language models in coding through multi- perspective self-consistency. InACL 2024 (Long Papers), 2024

    2024

  10. [10]

    Qwen2.5-coder technical report.arXiv, 2024

    Binyuan Hui, Jian Yang, Zeyu Cui, Jiaxi Yang, Dayiheng Liu, Lei Zhang, Tianyu Liu, Jiajun Zhang, Bowen Yu, Keming Lu, Kai Dang, Yang Fan, Yichang Zhang, An Yang, Rui Men, Fei Huang, Bo Zheng, Yibo Miao, Shanghaoran Quan, Yunlong Feng, Xingzhang Ren, Xuancheng Ren, Jingren Zhou, and Junyang Lin. Qwen2.5-coder technical report.arXiv, 2024

    2024

  11. [11]

    Multi-turn code generation through single-step rewards

    Arnav Kumar Jain, Gonzalo Gonzalez-Pumariega, Wayne Chen, Alexander M Rush, Wenting Zhao, and Sanjiban Choudhury. Multi-turn code generation through single-step rewards. InICML, 2025

    2025

  12. [12]

    Livecodebench: Holistic and contamination free evaluation of large language models for code

    Naman Jain, King Han, Alex Gu, Wen-Ding Li, Fanjia Yan, Tianjun Zhang, Sida Wang, Armando Solar-Lezama, Koushik Sen, and Ion Stoica. Livecodebench: Holistic and contamination free evaluation of large language models for code. In ICLR, 2025

    2025

  13. [13]

    Reasoning with sampling: Your base model is smarter than you think.arXiv, 2025

    Aayush Karan and Yilun Du. Reasoning with sampling: Your base model is smarter than you think.arXiv, 2025

    2025

  14. [14]

    Efficient memory management for large language model serving with pagedattention

    Woosuk Kwon, Zhuohan Li, Siyuan Zhuang, Ying Sheng, Lianmin Zheng, Cody Hao Yu, Joseph Gonzalez, Hao Zhang, and Ion Stoica. Efficient memory management for large language model serving with pagedattention. InProceedings of the 29th Symposium on Operating Systems Principles, 2023

    2023

  15. [15]

    Learning to generate unit test via adversarial reinforcement learning

    Dongjun Lee, Changho Hwang, and Kimin Lee. Learning to generate unit test via adversarial reinforcement learning. arXiv, 2025

    2025

  16. [16]

    Gonzalez, and Ion Stoica

    Dacheng Li, Shiyi Cao, Chengkun Cao, Xiuyu Li, Shangyin Tan, Kurt Keutzer, Jiarong Xing, Joseph E. Gonzalez, and Ion Stoica. S*: Test time scaling for code generation. InFindings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2025, 2025

    2025

  17. [17]

    Codetree: Agent-guided tree search for code generation with large language models

    Jierui Li, Hung Le, Yingbo Zhou, Caiming Xiong, Silvio Savarese, and Doyen Sahoo. Codetree: Agent-guided tree search for code generation with large language models. InNAACL, 2025

    2025

  18. [18]

    Competition-level code generation with alphacode.Science, 2022

    Yujia Li, David Choi, Junyoung Chung, Nate Kushman, Julian Schrittwieser, Rémi Leblond, Tom Eccles, James Keeling, Felix Gimeno, Agustin Dal Lago, et al. Competition-level code generation with alphacode.Science, 2022

    2022

  19. [19]

    SFS: Smarter code space search improves LLM inference scaling

    Jonathan Light, Yue Wu, Yiyou Sun, Wenchao Yu, Yanchi Liu, Xujiang Zhao, Ziniu Hu, Haifeng Chen, and Wei Cheng. SFS: Smarter code space search improves LLM inference scaling. InICLR, 2025

    2025

  20. [20]

    Let’s verify step by step

    Hunter Lightman, Vineet Kosaraju, Yura Burda, Harri Edwards, Bowen Baker, Teddy Lee, Jan Leike, John Schulman, Ilya Sutskever, and Karl Cobbe. Let’s verify step by step. InICLR, 2024

    2024

  21. [21]

    Is your code generated by chatGPT really correct? rigorous evaluation of large language models for code generation

    Jiawei Liu, Chunqiu Steven Xia, Yuyao Wang, and LINGMING ZHANG. Is your code generated by chatGPT really correct? rigorous evaluation of large language models for code generation. InNeurIPS, 2023. 12

    2023

  22. [22]

    Code-r1: Reproducing r1 for code with reliable rewards

    Jiawei Liu and Lingming Zhang. Code-r1: Reproducing r1 for code with reliable rewards. 2025

    2025

  23. [23]

    Inference-time scaling for generalist reward modeling.arXiv, 2025

    Zijun Liu, Peiyi Wang, Runxin Xu, Shirong Ma, Chong Ruan, Peng Li, Yang Liu, and Yu Wu. Inference-time scaling for generalist reward modeling.arXiv, 2025

    2025

  24. [24]

    Dynamic scaling of unit tests for code reward modeling

    Zeyao Ma, Xiaokang Zhang, Jing Zhang, Jifan Yu, Sijia Luo, and Jie Tang. Dynamic scaling of unit tests for code reward modeling. InACL Long, 2025

    2025

  25. [25]

    Codeforces.Hugging Face repository, 2025

    Guilherme Penedo, Anton Lozhkov, Hynek Kydlíˇcek, Loubna Ben Allal, Edward Beeching, Agustín Piqueres Lajarín, Quentin Gallouédec, Nathan Habib, Lewis Tunstall, and Leandro von Werra. Codeforces.Hugging Face repository, 2025

    2025

  26. [26]

    Learning to generate unit tests for automated debugging

    Archiki Prasad, Elias Stengel-Eskin, Justin Chen, Zaid Khan, and Mohit Bansal. Learning to generate unit tests for automated debugging. InCOLM, 2025

    2025

  27. [27]

    Seed-coder: Let the code model curate data for itself.arXiv, 2025

    ByteDance Seed, Yuyu Zhang, Jing Su, Yifan Sun, Chenguang Xi, Xia Xiao, Shen Zheng, Anxiang Zhang, Kaibo Liu, Daoguang Zan, Tao Sun, Jinhua Zhu, Shulin Xin, Dong Huang, Yetao Bai, Lixin Dong, Chao Li, Jianchong Chen, Hanzhi Zhou, Yifan Huang, Guanghan Ning, Xierui Song, Jiaze Chen, Siyao Liu, Kai Shen, Liang Xiang, and Yonghui Wu. Seed-coder: Let the code...

    2025

  28. [28]

    Reflexion: Language agents with verbal reinforcement learning

    Noah Shinn, Federico Cassano, Edward Berman, Ashwin Gopinath, Karthik Narasimhan, and Shunyu Yao. Reflexion: Language agents with verbal reinforcement learning. InNeurIPS, 2023

    2023

  29. [29]

    Mastering the game of go with deep neural networks and tree search.Nature, 2016

    David Silver, Aja Huang, Chris J Maddison, Arthur Guez, Laurent Sifre, George Van Den Driessche, Julian Schrittwieser, Ioannis Antonoglou, Veda Panneershelvam, Marc Lanctot, et al. Mastering the game of go with deep neural networks and tree search.Nature, 2016

    2016

  30. [30]

    Mastering chess and shogi by self-play with a general reinforcement learning algorithm.arXiv, 2017

    David Silver, Thomas Hubert, Julian Schrittwieser, Ioannis Antonoglou, Matthew Lai, Arthur Guez, Marc Lanctot, Laurent Sifre, Dharshan Kumaran, Thore Graepel, et al. Mastering chess and shogi by self-play with a general reinforcement learning algorithm.arXiv, 2017

    2017

  31. [31]

    Effective large language model debugging with best-first tree search

    Jialin Song, Jonathan Raiman, and Bryan Catanzaro. Effective large language model debugging with best-first tree search. arXiv, 2024

    2024

  32. [32]

    Code repair with LLMs gives an exploration-exploitation tradeoff

    Hao Tang, Keya Hu, Jin Peng Zhou, Si Cheng Zhong, Wei-Long Zheng, Xujie Si, and Kevin Ellis. Code repair with LLMs gives an exploration-exploitation tradeoff. InNeurIPS, 2024

    2024

  33. [33]

    Kimi Team, Angang Du, Bofei Gao, Bowei Xing, Changjiu Jiang, Cheng Chen, Cheng Li, Chenjun Xiao, Chenzhuang Du, and et. al. Kimi k1.5: Scaling reinforcement learning with llms.arXiv, 2025

    2025

  34. [34]

    Hendryx, Summer Yue, and Hugh Zhang

    Evan Z Wang, Federico Cassano, Catherine Wu, Yunfeng Bai, William Song, Vaskar Nath, Ziwen Han, Sean M. Hendryx, Summer Yue, and Hugh Zhang. Planning in natural language improves LLM search for code generation. InICLR, 2025

    2025

  35. [35]

    CURE: Co-evolving coders and unit testers via reinforcement learning

    Yinjie Wang, Ling Yang, Ye Tian, Ke Shen, and Mengdi Wang. CURE: Co-evolving coders and unit testers via reinforcement learning. InNeurIPS, 2025

    2025

  36. [36]

    Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models

    Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, Brian Ichter, Fei Xia, Ed Chi, Quoc Le, and Denny Zhou. Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models. InNeurIPS, 2022

    2022

  37. [37]

    Livebench: A challenging, contamination-limited llm benchmark

    Colin White, Samuel Dooley, Manley Roberts, Arka Pal, Ben Feuer, Siddhartha Jain, Ravid Shwartz-Ziv, Neel Jain, Khalid Saifullah, Sreemanti Dey, Shubh-Agrawal, Sandeep Singh Sandha, Siddartha Naidu, Chinmay Hegde, Yann LeCun, Tom Goldstein, Willie Neiswanger, and Micah Goldblum. Livebench: A challenging, contamination-limited llm benchmark. InICLR, 2025

    2025

  38. [38]

    Teaching language models to critique via reinforcement learning

    Zhihui Xie, Jie chen, Liyu Chen, Weichao Mao, Jingjing Xu, and Lingpeng Kong. Teaching language models to critique via reinforcement learning. InICML, 2025

    2025

  39. [39]

    Griffiths, Yuan Cao, and Karthik R Narasimhan

    Shunyu Yao, Dian Yu, Jeffrey Zhao, Izhak Shafran, Thomas L. Griffiths, Yuan Cao, and Karthik R Narasimhan. Tree of thoughts: Deliberate problem solving with large language models. InNeurIPS, 2023

    2023

  40. [40]

    Qiying Yu, Zheng Zhang, Ruofei Zhu, Yufeng Yuan, Xiaochen Zuo, Yu Yue, Weinan Dai, Tiantian Fan, Gaohong Liu, Lingjun Liu, and et. al. Dapo: An open-source llm reinforcement learning system at scale. InNeurIPS, 2025

    2025

  41. [41]

    Reasoning through execution: Unifying process and outcome rewards for code generation

    Zhuohao Yu, Weizheng Gu, Yidong Wang, Xingru Jiang, Zhengran Zeng, Jindong Wang, Wei Ye, and Shikun Zhang. Reasoning through execution: Unifying process and outcome rewards for code generation. InICML, 2025

    2025

  42. [42]

    Does reinforcement learning really incentivize reasoning capacity in LLMs beyond the base model? InNeurIPS, 2025

    Yang Yue, Zhiqi Chen, Rui Lu, Andrew Zhao, Zhaokai Wang, Yang Yue, Shiji Song, and Gao Huang. Does reinforcement learning really incentivize reasoning capacity in LLMs beyond the base model? InNeurIPS, 2025. 13

    2025

  43. [43]

    ACECODER: Acing coder RL via automated test-case synthesis

    Huaye Zeng, Dongfu Jiang, Haozhe Wang, Ping Nie, Xiaotong Chen, and Wenhu Chen. ACECODER: Acing coder RL via automated test-case synthesis. InACL Long, 2025

    2025

  44. [44]

    Focused-DPO: Enhancing code generation through focused preference optimization on error-prone points

    Kechi Zhang, Ge Li, Jia Li, Yihong Dong, Jia Li, and Zhi Jin. Focused-DPO: Enhancing code generation through focused preference optimization on error-prone points. InACL findings, 2025

    2025

  45. [45]

    Thinking before running! efficient code generation with thorough exploration and optimal refinement

    Xiaoqing Zhang, Yuhan Liu, Flood Sung, Xiuying Chen, Shuo Shang, and Rui Yan. Thinking before running! efficient code generation with thorough exploration and optimal refinement. InACL findings, 2025

    2025

  46. [46]

    o1-coder: an o1 replication for coding.arXiv, 2024

    Yuxiang Zhang, Shangxi Wu, Yuqi Yang, Jiangming Shu, Jinlin Xiao, Chao Kong, and Jitao Sang. o1-coder: an o1 replication for coding.arXiv, 2024

    2024

  47. [47]

    Absolute zero: Reinforced self-play reasoning with zero data

    Andrew Zhao, Yiran Wu, Yang Yue, Tong Wu, Quentin Xu, Yang Yue, Matthieu Lin, Shenzhi Wang, Qingyun Wu, Zilong Zheng, and Gao Huang. Absolute zero: Reinforced self-play reasoning with zero data. InNeurIPS, 2025

    2025

  48. [48]

    Kakade, Cengiz Pehlevan, Samy Jelassi, and Eran Malach

    Rosie Zhao, Alexandru Meterez, Sham M. Kakade, Cengiz Pehlevan, Samy Jelassi, and Eran Malach. Echo chamber: RL post-training amplifies behaviors learned in pretraining. InCOLM, 2025

    2025

  49. [49]

    Debug like a human: A large language model debugger via verifying runtime execution step by step

    Li Zhong, Zilong Wang, and Jingbo Shang. Debug like a human: A large language model debugger via verifying runtime execution step by step. InACL findings, 2024. 14 Appendix A Theory Analysis 17 A.1 Analysis of Pass-Count Signals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 A.2 Analysis of Execution-Consensus Clustering . ...

    2024

  50. [50]

    Both the posterior odds ratio and the posterior probability of correctness are strictly increasing ins

    If q1 > q0, then r >1 . Both the posterior odds ratio and the posterior probability of correctness are strictly increasing ins

  51. [51]

    The support count changes neither the posterior odds ratio nor the posterior probability of correctness

    If q1 =q 0, then r= 1 . The support count changes neither the posterior odds ratio nor the posterior probability of correctness

  52. [52]

    Both the posterior odds ratio and the posterior probability of correctness are strictly decreasing ins

    If q1 < q 0, then 0< r <1 . Both the posterior odds ratio and the posterior probability of correctness are strictly decreasing ins. Moreover, Eq. (11) shows that the posterior odds ratio depends onsthrough the exponential factorr s. Corollary A.2(Posterior convergence at a fixed support ratio).Under the binomial model in Theorem A.1, let m be the number o...

  53. [53]

    Hence, when η > η ⋆, D(η)>0 , and the posterior probability of correctness converges exponentially fast to1

    If q1 > q0, then D is strictly increasing. Hence, when η > η ⋆, D(η)>0 , and the posterior probability of correctness converges exponentially fast to1. When η < η ⋆, D(η)<0 , and the posterior probability of correctness converges exponentially fast to0

  54. [54]

    Hence, when η < η ⋆, the posterior probability of correctness converges exponentially fast to1, and whenη > η ⋆, it converges exponentially fast to0

    If q1 < q 0, then D is strictly decreasing, so the sign direction is reversed. Hence, when η < η ⋆, the posterior probability of correctness converges exponentially fast to1, and whenη > η ⋆, it converges exponentially fast to0

  55. [55]

    Left") elifleft_sum == right_sum: print(

    If η=η ⋆, then D(η) = 0, and the posterior odds remain only at constant order. No exponential decision is obtained. This proves the claim. A.2 Analysis of Execution-Consensus Clustering Execution-Consensus Clustering is applied after BoN filtering. Let Chigh be the high-scoring set retained by BoN, and draw a codecfrom this set. All probabilities below ar...

    2025

  56. [56]

    We have 1 test casewiththeinputvaluesm= 10,a= 4,b= 4,andc= 11

  57. [57]

    3.amonkeys (4 monkeys) want to sitinrow 1

    There are 10 seatsineach of the 2 rows, so a total of 20 seats. 3.amonkeys (4 monkeys) want to sitinrow 1. 4.bmonkeys (4 monkeys) want to sitinrow 2. 5.cmonkeys (11 monkeys) have no preference

  58. [58]

    We need to maximize the number of monkeys seated, following their seating preferences

  59. [59]

    We first seat theamonkeysinrow 1andbmonkeysinrow 2, which takes up 4 seatsineach row

  60. [60]

    There are10−4 = 6seats leftinrow 1and10−4 = 6seats leftinrow 2

  61. [61]

    •After seating 6 monkeysinrow 1, we have11−6 = 5monkeys left

    We now seat thecmonkeys, startingwiththosewithno preference: •We can seat up to 6 of these monkeysinrow 1 since there are 6 seats left. •After seating 6 monkeysinrow 1, we have11−6 = 5monkeys left. •We can then seat the remaining 5 monkeysinrow 2 since there are 6 seats left

  62. [62]

    Fixed Code from CoSPlay-14B Analysis: The errorisa logical error (wrong answer),asthe code runs but produces the wrong output

    Therefore, we have seated 4 monkeysinrow 1, 4 monkeysinrow 2,and6 monkeysinrow 1 plus 5 monkeysinrow 2, which totals to4 + 4 + 6 + 5 = 19monkeys. Fixed Code from CoSPlay-14B Analysis: The errorisa logical error (wrong answer),asthe code runs but produces the wrong output. Let's trace the logic to find the divergence from the expected output. Given: •The i...

  63. [63]

    If`a > m`, then the number of monkeys that can sit in row 1 is limited to`m`

  64. [64]

    If`b > m`, then the number of monkeys that can sit in row 2 is limited to`m`

  65. [65]

    The remaining seats after seating monkeys with preferences are`2 * m - (a + b)`

  66. [66]

    Left")elif left_sum == right_sum: print(

    If there are more no-preference monkeys than remaining seats, only the available seats can be filled. Fixed Code def max_seats(m, a, b, c): # Limit monkeys preferring row 1 and row 2 to the available seats a = min(a, m) b = min(b, m) # Calculate the remaining seats after seating monkeys with preferences remaining_seats = 2 * m - (a + b) # Monkeys with no ...

  67. [67]

    second observation 60

  68. [68]

    Just output the numbered observations, nothingelse

    third observation •Do NOT addanyextra text, headings,orexplanations beforeorafter thelist. Just output the numbered observations, nothingelse. <|im_end|> <|im_start|>assistant Prompt for specific solution idea generation <|im_start|>system You are an expert Python programmer. <|im_end|> <|im_start|>user You will be given an competitive programming questio...

  69. [69]

    first derived observation

  70. [70]

    second derived observation

  71. [71]

    Just output the numbered observations, nothingelse

    third derived observation •Do NOT addanyextra text, headings,orexplanations beforeorafter thelist. Just output the numbered observations, nothingelse. <|im_end|> <|im_start|>assistant: Prompt for code generation from solution idea <|im_start|>system You are a helpful assistanthelpuser solve problems. <|im_end|> <|im_start|>user You need to write Python sc...

  72. [72]

    Unit Test Input

    third attack idea •Do NOT addanyextra text, headings,orexplanations beforeorafter thelist. Just output the numbered observations, nothingelse. <|im_end|> <|im_start|>assistant Prompt for UT input generation from UT attack idea <|im_start|>system You are an expert Software Engineering Tester designing unit test to uncover the potential bugs. <|im_end|> <|i...

  73. [73]

    Use only the given unit testinput;ifit seems mismatched to the problemformat, donotinvent missing data

  74. [74]

    Explanation

    Match the EXAMPLE's output format exactly (spacing/line breaks/order); no brackets/commas unless shown; empty output -> blank line. # Response Format Explanation: [Your step-by-step logic tracing here] Test output: [Raw Output Data ONLY] Let’s think step by step. <|im_end|> <|im_start|>assistant Prompt for generating non-coupling UT # Role You are an expe...

  75. [75]

    Do NOT copy the previous attempt

    Recompute strictlyfromthe giveninput;iftheinput formatseems off, donotinvent missing data. Do NOT copy the previous attempt

  76. [76]

    Actual Execution Output

    Match the EXAMPLE's output format exactly (spacing/line breaks/order); no brackets/commas unless shown; empty output→blank line. # Response Format Explanation: [Your step-by-step logic tracing here] Test output: [Raw Output Data ONLY] Let’s think step by step. Prompt for code fixing <|im_start|>system You are an expert programmer designing codeforcompetit...

  77. [77]

    Each line represents ONE independent testinput

  78. [78]

    Each testinputmust strictly follow theinput format andconstraints of the problem

  79. [79]

    Each line MUST startwiththe exact prefix: CASE|

  80. [80]

    Do NOT include parameter names, variable labels, code,or anyexplanatory text

    After CASE|, output ONLY the rawinputvaluesincorrect order. Do NOT include parameter names, variable labels, code,or anyexplanatory text. Problem: **Problem:** ``` {problem} ``` You MUST outputinthe following EXACTformat: CASE|```<input fortest case>``` <|im_end|> <|im_start|>assistant Prompt for direct code generation <|im_start|>system You are a helpful...