Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 cited by

CodeTree: Agent-guided Tree Search for Code Generation with Large Language Models

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2411.04329 v2 pith:NFRX2MF6 submitted 2024-11-07 cs.CL

classification cs.CL
keywords codecodetreegenerationcodingfeedbacklargemodelssearch
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Pre-trained on massive amounts of code and text data, large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable achievements in performing code generation tasks. With additional execution-based feedback, these models can act as agents with capabilities to self-refine and improve generated code autonomously. However, on challenging coding tasks with extremely large search space, current agentic approaches still struggle with multi-stage planning, generating, and debugging. To address this problem, we propose CodeTree, a framework for LLM agents to efficiently explore the search space in different stages of the code generation process. Specifically, we adopted a unified tree structure to explicitly explore different coding strategies, generate corresponding coding solutions, and subsequently refine the solutions. In each stage, critical decision-making (ranking, termination, expanding) of the exploration process is guided by both the environmental execution-based feedback and LLM-agent-generated feedback. We comprehensively evaluated CodeTree on 7 code generation benchmarks and demonstrated the significant performance gains of CodeTree against strong baselines. Using GPT-4o as the base model, we consistently achieved top results of 95.1 on HumanEval, 98.7 on MBPP, and 43.0 on CodeContests. On the challenging SWEBench benchmark, our approach led to significant performance gains.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Are They All Good? Evaluating the Quality of CoTs in LLM-based Code Generation

    cs.SE 2025-07 reject novelty 6.0 of 10

    An empirical study of 1,023 CoT-code pairs shows that 76.4% of LLM-generated CoTs are low quality and that CoT correctness does not guarantee code correctness.

  2. MLDebugging: Towards Benchmarking Code Debugging Across Multi-Library Scenarios

    cs.SE 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    MLDebugging: a new benchmark of 1,175 multi-library Python debugging tasks on which the best tested LLM, Llama-3.1-72B, passes only 58.7% of test cases.

  3. MasHost Builds It All: Autonomous Multi-Agent System Directed by Reinforcement Learning

    cs.MA 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    MasHost uses reinforcement learning to autonomously construct query-adaptive multi-agent graphs, and its authors report the best average accuracy across six LLM benchmarks.

  4. Let's Revise Step-by-Step: A Unified Local Search Framework for Code Generation with LLMs

    cs.CL 2025-08 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    The abstract claims a new local search framework for code generation, but the manuscript body is a different mathematics paper.

Pith tools