mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

MineValiCoder: Reliable Code Generation with Test Case Quality Mining and Bipartite Graph-Based Mutual Validation

arXiv 2607.22471 ↗First posted 24 Jul 2026cs.SE cs.AIcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Large Language Model (LLM)-based Test-Driven Development (TDD) has advanced automated code generation. However, existing approaches depend heavily on human-crafted test cases and cannot operate effectively when only natural-language requirements are available. Although recent work enables automatic test generation, it often overlooks the inherent stochasticity of LLMs, leading to two key defects: faulty tests generate misleading feedback that distorts code optimization, while mixed-quality test cases produce conflicting evaluation signals that hinder reliable code selection. To address these challenges, we propose MineValiCoder, a collaborative closed-loop TDD framework based on the mutual reinforcement of test-case quality and code quality. MineValiCoder comprises three modules. The Test Case Quality Mining (TCQM) module filters faulty test cases through self-validation, providing reliable optimization supervision. The Parallel TDD Refinement module iteratively optimizes code and generates diverse high-quality code candidates using validated test-case feedback. The Bipartite Graph-Based Code-Test Mutual Validation (BiCoTeV) module dynamically models code-test interactions and performs mutual validation scoring for stable and reliable optimal-code selection. Extensive evaluations across four LLMs and mainstream benchmarks show that MineValiCoder significantly outperforms state-of-the-art methods. Specifically, it achieves Pass@1 scores of 96.34% on HumanEval, 87.40% on MBPP, 64.00% on APPS, and 51.33% on LiveCodeBench. These results demonstrate the effectiveness of MineValiCoder in mitigating LLM stochasticity and improving the reliability of automated code generation.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 27 of its 30 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 24 Jul 2026.

Builds on

27 of 30 references.

References · 27

  1. 2023GPT-4 Technical Reportcited by 18,132
  2. 2024The Llama 3 Herd of Modelscited by 14,192
  3. 2023LLaMA: Open and Efficient Foundation Language Modelscited by 13,958
  4. 2022Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Modelscited by 12,302
  5. 2025Qwen3 Technical Reportcited by 8,195
  6. 2021Evaluating Large Language Models Trained on Codecited by 8,053
  7. 2022Self-Consistency Improves Chain of Thought Reasoning in Language Modelscited by 5,601
  8. 2023Reflexion: Language Agents with Verbal Reinforcement Learningcited by 4,064
  9. 2021Program Synthesis with Large Language Modelscited by 3,509
  10. 2023Self-Refine: Iterative Refinement with Self-Feedbackcited by 3,317
  11. 2023Code Llama: Open Foundation Models for Codecited by 2,105
  12. 2024LiveCodeBench: Holistic and Contamination Free Evaluation of Large Language Models for Codecited by 1,906
15 more
  1. 2023Is Your Code Generated by ChatGPT Really Correct? Rigorous Evaluation of Large Language Models for Code Generationcited by 1,332
  2. 2024Qwen2.5-Coder Technical Reportcited by 1,151
  3. 2021Measuring Coding Challenge Competence With APPScited by 879
  4. 2023StarCoder: may the source be with you!cited by 790
  5. 2022CodeT: Code Generation with Generated Testscited by 369
  6. 2023CodeT5+: Open Code Large Language Models for Code Understanding and Generationcited by 327
  7. 2024MapCoder: Multi-Agent Code Generation for Competitive Problem Solvingcited by 177
  8. 2023Self-planning Code Generation with Large Language Modelscited by 121
  9. 2025CodeContests+: High-Quality Test Case Generation for Competitive Programmingcited by 39
  10. 2024Test-Driven Development for Code Generationcited by 32
  11. 2024CodeTree: Agent-guided Tree Search for Code Generation with Large Language Modelscited by 32
  12. 2024Large Language Models as Test Case Generators: Performance Evaluation and Enhancementcited by 27
  13. 2024Divide-and-Conquer Meets Consensus: Unleashing the Power of Functions in Code Generationcited by 19
  14. 2025Test Wars: A Comparative Study of SBST, Symbolic Execution, and LLM-Based Approaches to Unit Test Generationcited by 7
  15. 2025Large Language Model Guided Self-Debugging Code Generationcited by 7

Built on by

Not cited yet.