Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 cited by

LEVER: Learning to Verify Language-to-Code Generation with Execution

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2302.08468 v3 pith:J2QANFYJ submitted 2023-02-16 cs.LG cs.CLcs.PLcs.SE

classification cs.LGcs.CLcs.PLcs.SE
keywords executionresultsgenerationlanguage-to-codecodeleverllmsprogram
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

The advent of large language models trained on code (code LLMs) has led to significant progress in language-to-code generation. State-of-the-art approaches in this area combine LLM decoding with sample pruning and reranking using test cases or heuristics based on the execution results. However, it is challenging to obtain test cases for many real-world language-to-code applications, and heuristics cannot well capture the semantic features of the execution results, such as data type and value range, which often indicates the correctness of the program. In this work, we propose LEVER, a simple approach to improve language-to-code generation by learning to verify the generated programs with their execution results. Specifically, we train verifiers to determine whether a program sampled from the LLMs is correct or not based on the natural language input, the program itself and its execution results. The sampled programs are reranked by combining the verification score with the LLM generation probability, and marginalizing over programs with the same execution results. On four datasets across the domains of table QA, math QA and basic Python programming, LEVER consistently improves over the base code LLMs(4.6% to 10.9% with code-davinci-002) and achieves new state-of-the-art results on all of them.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. SCOPE: Synthetic Conditional Objectives for Policy Evolution in Black-Box Combinatorial Optimization

    cs.AI 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    SCOPE evolves LLM-generated auxiliary objective functions and selects a validated portfolio of them to guide fixed combinatorial search engines under strict black-box query budgets.

  2. Non-programmers Assessing AI-Generated Code: A Case Study of Business Users Analyzing Data

    cs.HC 2025-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Non-programmer business users often fail to spot critical mistakes in AI-generated data analyses, even when explicitly warned and incentivized.

  3. Enhancing SLMs for Sustainable Code Optimization in Radio-Astronomy

    cs.SE 2026-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A 7-billion-parameter coding model with multi-sampling matches a 32-billion-parameter model on repository-level completion under the same time budget, and compiler-error feedback improves pass rates across all models tested.

Pith tools