ACE-RLHF: Automated Code Evaluation and Socratic Feedback Generation Tool using Large Language Models and Reinforcement Learning with Human Feedback
On the map: LLM alignment / RLHF / preference optimisation → Process reward models for reasoning
Abstract (arXiv)
Automated Program Repair tools are developed for generating feedback and suggesting a repair method for erroneous code. State of the art (SOTA) code repair methods rely on data-driven approaches and often fail to deliver solution for complicated programming questions. To interpret the natural language of unprecedented programming problems, using Large Language Models (LLMs) for code-feedback generation is crucial. LLMs generate more comprehensible feedback than compiler-generated error messages, and Reinforcement Learning with Human Feedback (RLHF) further enhances quality by integrating human-in-the-loop which helps novice students to lean programming from scratch interactively. We are applying RLHF fine-tuning technique for an expected Socratic response such as a question with hint to solve the programming issue. We are proposing code feedback generation tool by fine-tuning LLM with RLHF, Automated Code Evaluation with RLHF (ACE-RLHF), combining two open-source LLM models with two different SOTA optimization techniques. The quality of feedback is evaluated on two benchmark datasets containing basic and competition-level programming questions where the later is proposed by us. We achieved 2-5% higher accuracy than RL-free SOTA techniques using Llama-3-7B-Proximal-policy optimization in automated evaluation and similar or slightly higher accuracy compared to reward model-free RL with AI Feedback (RLAIF). We achieved almost 40% higher accuracy with GPT-3.5 Best-of-n optimization while performing manual evaluation.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Process reward models for reasoning, one of 10 directions in LLM alignment / RLHF / preference optimisation. Builds on 10 of its 16 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 7 Apr 2025.
Builds on
10 of 16 references.
Closest ancestors · 1
Same direction, newest first
Other references · 9
- 2020DeBERTa: Decoding-enhanced BERT with Disentangled Attentioncited by 2,157
- 2023Is Your Code Generated by ChatGPT Really Correct? Rigorous Evaluation of Large Language Models for Code Generationcited by 1,332
- 2018Scalable agent alignment via reward modeling: a research directioncited by 438
- 2022Using Large Language Models to Enhance Programming Error Messagescited by 67
- 2020Reinforced Negative Sampling over Knowledge Graph for Recommendationcited by 40
- 2018Adaptations of ROUGE and BLEU to Better Evaluate Machine Reading Comprehension Taskcited by 20
- 2023Can Language Models Employ the Socratic Method? Experiments with Code Debuggingcited by 14
- 2023A Survey on Automated Program Repair Techniquescited by 12
- 2022Automated Feedback Generation for Competition-Level Codecited by 7
Built on by
Not cited yet.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2024RLEF: Grounding Code LLMs in Execution Feedback with Reinforcement Learning
- 2024Applying RLAIF for Code Generation with API-usage in Lightweight LLMs
- 2025Aligning Crowd-sourced Human Feedback for Reinforcement Learning on Code Generation by Large Language Models
- 2025FeedbackEval: A Benchmark for Evaluating Large Language Models in Feedback-Driven Code Repair Tasks
- 2024StepCoder: Improve Code Generation with Reinforcement Learning from Compiler Feedback
- 2026Large Language Models for Programming: Actually Fixing or Reimplementing Incorrect Code?
- 2024Process Supervision-Guided Policy Optimization for Code Generation
- 2026Unlocking LLM Code Correction with Iterative Feedback Loops