PLUM: Improving Code LMs with Execution-Guided On-Policy Preference Learning Driven By Synthetic Test Cases
On the map: LLM alignment / RLHF / preference optimisation → Process reward models for reasoning
Abstract (arXiv)
Preference learning provides a promising solution to address the limitations of supervised fine-tuning (SFT) for code language models, where the model is not explicitly trained to differentiate between correct and incorrect code. Recent findings demonstrate that on-policy data is the key to successful preference learning, where the preference data is collected using the same policy LM being trained. Inspired by this, we propose PLUM, an on-policy Preference Learning framework Augmented with test cases for code LM s. The framework operates in three key stages: (1) automatic generation of test cases from natural language instructions, (2) creation of a preference data by evaluating candidate code solutions sampled from the policy, which can then be used to (3) train the policy LM. PLUM levitates the need to train reward models, allowing for large scale on-policy and online preference data collation. PLUM is evaluated on both standard benchmarks (HumanEval, MBPP) and more challenging ones (LiveCodeBench), delivering substantial improvements over original SFT'ed models and other execution-feedback-driven approaches. We show PLUM's benefits are consistent across various widely-used code LMs even they have been well-trained with SFT. For example, PLUM increases pass rates by up to 4.8% on average on standard benchmarks and 11.8% on LiveCodeBench, demonstrating its effectiveness and generalizability. We also demonstrate the benefits of on-policy and online preference learning by comprehensive experimentation.
Key facts. Cited by 8 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Process reward models for reasoning, one of 10 directions in LLM alignment / RLHF / preference optimisation. Builds on 28 of its 50 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 11 Jun 2024.
Builds on
28 of 50 references.
References · 28
- 2021Evaluating Large Language Models Trained on Codecited by 8,053
- 2023Direct Preference Optimization: Your Language Model is Secretly a Reward Modelcited by 7,916
- 2023Reflexion: Language Agents with Verbal Reinforcement Learningcited by 4,064
- 2021Program Synthesis with Large Language Modelscited by 3,509
- 2022Competition-Level Code Generation with AlphaCodecited by 1,427
- 2023Is Your Code Generated by ChatGPT Really Correct? Rigorous Evaluation of Large Language Models for Code Generationcited by 1,332
- 2024DeepSeek-Coder: When the Large Language Model Meets Programming -- The Rise of Code Intelligencecited by 1,154
- 2023A General Theoretical Paradigm to Understand Learning from Human Preferencescited by 906
- 2023StarCoder: may the source be with you!cited by 790
- 2023RAFT: Reward rAnked FineTuning for Generative Foundation Model Alignmentcited by 672
- 2022CodeT: Code Generation with Generated Testscited by 369
- 2023Iterative Preference Learning from Human Feedback: Bridging Theory and Practice for RLHF under KL-Constraintcited by 346
16 more
- 2022CodeRL: Mastering Code Generation through Pretrained Models and Deep Reinforcement Learningcited by 342
- 2024Direct Language Model Alignment from Online AI Feedbackcited by 257
- 2024OpenCodeInterpreter: Integrating Code Generation with Execution and Refinementcited by 242
- 2024Preference Fine-Tuning of LLMs Should Leverage Suboptimal, On-Policy Datacited by 184
- 2019SPoC: Search-based Pseudocode to Codecited by 176
- 2020Unit Test Case Generation with Transformers and Focal Contextcited by 118
- 2023RLTF: Reinforcement Learning from Unit Test Feedbackcited by 110
- 2024Understanding the performance gap between online and offline alignment algorithmscited by 110
- 2024Provably Mitigating Overoptimization in RLHF: Your SFT Loss is Implicitly an Adversarial Regularizercited by 109
- 2023Execution-based Code Generation using Deep Reinforcement Learningcited by 95
- 2022Language Models Can Teach Themselves to Program Bettercited by 75
- 2024Robust Preference Optimization through Reward Model Distillationcited by 67
- 2024Self-Exploring Language Models: Active Preference Elicitation for Online Alignmentcited by 63
- 2022Parsel: Algorithmic Reasoning with Language Models by Composing Decompositionscited by 62
- 2024LLM-Based Test-Driven Interactive Code Generation: User Study and Empirical Evaluationcited by 46
- 2023LeTI: Learning to Generate from Textual Interactionscited by 25
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2024: 1; 2025: 7.
8 papers.
- 2024Scaling of Search and Learning: A Roadmap to Reproduce o1 from Reinforcement Learning Perspectivecited by 49
- 2025The Best Instruction-Tuning Data are Those That Fitcited by 48
- 2025Insights from Verification: Training a Verilog Generation LLM with Reinforcement Learning with Testbench Feedbackcited by 14
- 2025RepoST: Scalable Repository-Level Coding Environment Construction with Sandbox Testingcited by 12
- 2025Uncovering the Impact of Chain-of-Thought Reasoning for Direct Preference Optimization: Lessons from Text-to-SQLcited by 9
- 2025Alignment with Fill-In-the-Middle for Enhancing Code Generationcited by 4
- 2025EARL: Entropy-Aware RL Alignment of LLMs for Reliable RTL Code Generationcited by 2
- 2025Learning to Align Human Code Preferencescited by 1
- 2025EARL: Entropy-Aware RL Alignment of LLMs for Reliable RTL Code Generation15 Nov 2025
- 2025Alignment with Fill-In-the-Middle for Enhancing Code Generation27 Aug 2025
- 2025Learning to Align Human Code Preferences27 Jul 2025
- 2025Insights from Verification: Training a Verilog Generation LLM with Reinforcement Learning with Testbench Feedback22 Apr 2025
- 2025RepoST: Scalable Repository-Level Coding Environment Construction with Sandbox Testing10 Mar 2025
- 2025Uncovering the Impact of Chain-of-Thought Reasoning for Direct Preference Optimization: Lessons from Text-to-SQL17 Feb 2025
- 2025The Best Instruction-Tuning Data are Those That Fit6 Feb 2025
- 2024Scaling of Search and Learning: A Roadmap to Reproduce o1 from Reinforcement Learning Perspective18 Dec 2024
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2024Learning Code Preference via Synthetic Evolution
- 2024DSTC: Direct Preference Learning with Only Self-Generated Tests and Code to Improve Code LMs
- 2025Teaching Your Models to Understand Code via Focal Preference Alignment
- 2024CodeLutra: Boosting LLM Code Generation via Preference-Guided Refinement
- 2025On-Policy Optimization with Group Equivalent Preference for Multi-Programming Language Understanding
- 2026Self-Improving Code Generation via Semantic Entropy and Behavioral Consensus
- 2025Integrating Symbolic Execution into the Fine-Tuning of Code-Generating LLMs
- 2025Enhancing the Non-Functional Quality Compliance of LLM-Generated Code through Quality-Aware Preference Learning