# When Do Intrinsic Rewards Work for Code Reasoning? A Comprehensive Study

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.20881 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.20881/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Reinforcement learning for reasoning, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning.
- Builds on 16 of its 16 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 18 Jun 2026.

## Placed in

- LLM reasoning / [Reinforcement learning for reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/lr/reinforcement-learning-for-reasoning/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 16 of 16)

- [Evaluating Large Language Models Trained on Code](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2107.03374/) (2021)
- [SWE-bench: Can Language Models Resolve Real-World GitHub Issues?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.06770/) (2023)
- [LiveCodeBench: Holistic and Contamination Free Evaluation of Large Language Models for Code](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.07974/) (2024)
- [SWE-agent: Agent-Computer Interfaces Enable Automated Software Engineering](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.15793/) (2024)
- [Competition-Level Code Generation with AlphaCode](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.07814/) (2022)
- [Tulu 3: Pushing Frontiers in Open Language Model Post-Training](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2411.15124/) (2024)
- [GLM-4.5: Agentic, Reasoning, and Coding (ARC) Foundation Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2508.06471/) (2025)
- [The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Entropy Minimization in LLM Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.15134/) (2025)
- [Trae Agent: An LLM-based Agent for Software Engineering with Test-time Scaling](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.23370/) (2025)
- [Can Large Reasoning Models Self-Train?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.21444/) (2025)
- [Confidence Is All You Need: Few-Shot RL Fine-Tuning of Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.06395/) (2025)
- [Consistent Paths Lead to Truth: Self-Rewarding Reinforcement Learning for LLM Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.08745/) (2025)
- [Stabilizing Knowledge, Promoting Reasoning: Dual-Token Constraints for RLVR](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.15778/) (2025)
- [ETTRL: Balancing Exploration and Exploitation in LLM Test-Time Reinforcement Learning Via Entropy Mechanism](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2508.11356/) (2025)
- [Post-Training Large Language Models via Reinforcement Learning from Self-Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.21931/) (2025)
- [A Self-Supervised Reinforcement Learning Approach for Fine-Tuning Large Language Models Using Cross-Attention Signals](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.10482/) (2025)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) has driven substantial progress in large language model reasoning, but relies on ground-truth supervision that is costly or infeasible, especially in coding tasks. Recent work addresses this by deriving rewards from a model's own signals, such as majority voting or confidence-based scores, achieving notable success on mathematical reasoning benchmarks. However, code generation poses distinct challenges: programs are structurally complex, semantically equivalent solutions may differ syntactically, and verification typically requires execution. Whether these intrinsic reward methods transfer effectively to code remains unexplored. In this work, we present a systematic empirical study of intrinsic reward methods for code generation. We conduct extensive experiments on LiveCodeBench, systematically evaluating representative certainty-based Reinforcement Learning from Internal Feedback (RLIF) approaches under different training scenarios and hyperparameter settings. Our experiments reveal that certainty-based methods yield early gains but inevitably collapse: models progressively shorten outputs and lose reasoning capability, with collapse speed sensitive to sample size and temperature. When used to initialize RLVR training, RLIF pre-training offers no significant improvement over training from scratch. We also provide actionable recommendations for using intrinsic rewards for training code reasoning models. Our study shows both the promise and limitations of intrinsic reward methods for code, informing future work on code models and agents.