Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 cited by

ALGO: Synthesizing Algorithmic Programs with LLM-Generated Oracle Verifiers

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 2305.14591 v3 pith:XKWOQ5CA submitted 2023-05-24 cs.CL cs.SE

classification cs.CLcs.SE
keywords algollm-generatedprogramsalgorithmicbettercodemodeloracle
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
read the original abstract

Large language models (LLMs) excel at implementing code from functionality descriptions but struggle with algorithmic problems that require not only implementation but also identification of the suitable algorithm. Moreover, LLM-generated programs lack guaranteed correctness and require human verification. To address these challenges, we propose ALGO, a framework that synthesizes Algorithmic programs with LLM-Generated Oracles to guide the generation and verify their correctness. ALGO first generates a reference oracle by prompting an LLM to exhaustively enumerate all the combinations of relevant variables. This oracle is then utilized to guide an arbitrary search strategy in exploring the algorithm space and to verify the synthesized algorithms. Our study shows that the LLM-generated oracles are correct for 88% of the cases. With the oracles as verifiers, ALGO can be integrated with any existing code generation model in a model-agnostic manner to enhance its performance. Experiments show that when equipped with ALGO, we achieve an 8x better one-submission pass rate over the Codex model and a 2.6x better one-submission pass rate over CodeT, the current state-of-the-art model on CodeContests. We can also get 1.3x better pass rate over the ChatGPT Code Interpreter on unseen problems. The problem set we used for testing, the prompts we used, the verifier and solution programs, and the test cases generated by ALGO are available at https://github.com/zkx06111/ALGO.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 5 Pith papers

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

  1. Can LLMs Generate High-Quality Test Cases for Algorithm Problems? TestCase-Eval: A Systematic Evaluation of Fault Coverage and Exposure

    cs.SE 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    TestCase-Eval introduces fault coverage and fault exposure tasks over 500 Codeforces problems and finds that 19 LLMs, led by Qwen3-32B, remain far below human expert performance.

  2. HardTests: Synthesizing High-Quality Test Cases for LLM Coding

    cs.CL 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    HardTestGen generates higher-precision, higher-recall test suites for 47,136 competitive programming problems, improving test precision by 11.3 points and recall by 17.5 points over TACO and CodeContests when judging ...

  3. ACECODER: Acing Coder RL via Automated Test-Case Synthesis

    cs.SE 2025-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    ACECODER shows that automatically synthesized test cases can serve as scalable reward signals for code RL, yielding consistent gains on HumanEval, MBPP, BigCodeBench, and LiveCodeBench.

  4. Enhancing Relation Extraction via Supervised Rationale Verification and Feedback

    cs.CL 2024-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A supervised rationale verifier trained on contrastively collected biased and unbiased rationales improves few-shot relation extraction by retrieving corrective demonstrations for the LLM.

  5. Leveraging Large Language Models for Command Injection Vulnerability Analysis in Python: An Empirical Study on Popular Open-Source Projects

    cs.SE 2025-05 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    GPT-4 detected command injection in popular Python projects with 75.5% accuracy and F1 74.5%, missing 15 real cases and beating Bandit on precision.

Pith tools