Self-Execution Simulation Improves Coding Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2604.03253v1
• Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2026 15:28:22 GMT
• Title: Self-Execution Simulation Improves Coding Models
• Abstract summary: We show that Code LLMs can be trained to simulate program execution in a step-by-step manner.<n>Our approach combines supervised fine-tuning on natural language execution traces, textual explanations grounded in true execution, with reinforcement learning.
• Score: 37.139165988182654
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: A promising research direction in enabling LLMs to generate consistently correct code involves addressing their inability to properly estimate program execution, particularly for code they generate. In this work, we demonstrate that Code LLMs can be trained to simulate program execution in a step-by-step manner and that this capability can be leveraged to improve competitive programming performance. Our approach combines supervised fine-tuning on natural language execution traces, textual explanations grounded in true execution, with reinforcement learning using verifiable rewards. We introduce two complementary objectives: output prediction given code and inputs, and solving competitive programming tasks with either ground-truth or self-predicted execution feedback. These objectives enable models to perform self-verification over multiple candidate solutions, and iterative self-fixing by simulating test execution. Across multiple competitive programming benchmarks, our method yields consistent improvements over standard reasoning approaches. We further present ablations and analysis to elucidate the role of execution simulation and its limitations.

Related papers

• The Imitation Game: When LLMs Learn to Reason Like Programs via Code-Centric Reasoning Data Synthesis [50.473217152006875]
  MIMIC is a framework that leverages executable code as a rigorous medium for reasoning data synthesis.<n>MIMIC transforms algorithms into verifiable reasoning trajectories through narrative fusion, code-guided test synthesis, and dynamic code instrumentation.<n>Our method significantly elevates accuracy across general reasoning, complex mathematical benchmarks, and fine-grained deterministic tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-13T17:04:16Z)
• Unlocking LLM Code Correction with Iterative Feedback Loops [5.504955093712013]
  This study introduces metrics to evaluate code failures, analyze rectification patterns, and compare the effectiveness of reasoning and non-reasoning models.<n>Results show that reasoning models consistently improve over iterations, substantially outperforming non-reasoning models in leveraging feedback.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-16T04:47:42Z)
• You Don't Need Public Tests to Generate Correct Code [0.9668407688201359]
  We show that large language models possess the capability to autonomously construct valid inputs and simulate execution flows for self-correction.<n>We introduce DryRUN, a framework that removes the necessity for ground-truth data by enabling the LLM to iteratively plan, synthesize its own test inputs, and run simulated executions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-23T12:21:03Z)
• Execution-Verified Reinforcement Learning for Optimization Modeling [49.171122807323634]
  Execution-verified learning framework treats a mathematical programming solver as a deterministic, interactive verifier.<n>Experiments on NL4OPT, MAMO, IndustryOR, and OptiBench across Gurobi, OR-Tools, and COPT show that EVOM matches or outperforms process-supervised SFT.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-01T03:39:11Z)
• Scaling Agentic Verifier for Competitive Coding [66.11758166379092]
  Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated strong coding capabilities but still struggle to solve competitive programming problems correctly in a single attempt.<n>Execution-based re-ranking offers a promising test-time scaling strategy, yet existing methods are constrained by either difficult test case generation or inefficient random input sampling.<n>We propose Agentic Verifier, an execution-based agent that actively reasons about program behaviors and searches for highly discriminative test inputs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-04T06:30:40Z)
• Training Language Models to Generate Quality Code with Program Analysis Feedback [66.0854002147103]
  Code generation with large language models (LLMs) is increasingly adopted in production but fails to ensure code quality.<n>We propose REAL, a reinforcement learning framework that incentivizes LLMs to generate production-quality code.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-28T17:57:47Z)
• Program Semantic Inequivalence Game with Large Language Models [20.43560028315856]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) can achieve strong performance on everyday coding tasks, but they can fail on complex tasks that require non-trivial reasoning about program semantics.<n>In this work, we explore a method to synthetically generate code reasoning training data based on a semantic inequivalence game SInQ.<n>We prove that this setup enables theoretically unlimited improvement through self-play in the limit of infinite computational resources.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-02T20:03:35Z)
• Improving LLM Reasoning through Scaling Inference Computation with Collaborative Verification [52.095460362197336]
  Large language models (LLMs) struggle with consistent and accurate reasoning. LLMs are trained primarily on correct solutions, reducing their ability to detect and learn from errors. We propose a novel collaborative method integrating Chain-of-Thought (CoT) and Program-of-Thought (PoT) solutions for verification.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-05T05:21:48Z)
• Code Simulation Challenges for Large Language Models [6.970495767499435]
  This work studies to what extent Large Language Models (LLMs) can simulate coding and algorithmic tasks. We introduce benchmarks for straight-line programs, code that contains critical paths, and approximate and redundant instructions. We propose a novel off-the-shelf prompting method, Chain of Simulation (CoSm), which instructs LLMs to simulate code execution line by line/follow the pattern of compilers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-17T09:23:59Z)
• LEVER: Learning to Verify Language-to-Code Generation with Execution [64.36459105535]
  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. LEVER consistently improves over the base code LLMs(4.6% to 10.9% with code-davinci) and achieves new state-of-the-art results on all of them.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-16T18:23:22Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.