CoRe-Code: Collaborative Reinforcement Learning for Code Generation

Qinjian Zhao; Sumon Biswas; Xiaoyu Xia; Zhihao Dou; Zhongwei Wan

arxiv: 2605.24812 · v1 · pith:5MM7G2TEnew · submitted 2026-05-24 · 💻 cs.AI

CoRe-Code: Collaborative Reinforcement Learning for Code Generation

Zhihao Dou , Qinjian Zhao , Zhongwei Wan , Xiaoyu Xia , Sumon Biswas This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-30 11:56 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.AI

keywords code generationreinforcement learningmulti-agent systemsLLM agentscollaborative learningGRPO

0 comments

The pith

CoRe-Code uses a Planner-Coder split and GRPO training to improve multi-agent LLM code generation accuracy and efficiency.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper presents CoRe-Code as a framework that assigns one agent to produce high-level plans and another to write the code, then trains both together with a group-relative policy optimization step that rewards coordinated outputs. Current LLM code methods often generate locally correct fragments that still fail overall tests or run slowly because planning and execution stay loosely connected. Adding the explicit split plus the collaboration-aware RL stage produces measurable gains in pass rates while lowering runtime and memory demands across several benchmarks. The approach also extends to other agent roles such as retrieval or debugging without retraining the core mechanism.

Core claim

CoRe-Code adopts a Planner-Coder paradigm where the Planner produces high-level plans and the Coder executes them to generate code, then applies a collaboration-aware reinforcement learning stage based on Group Relative Policy Optimization to enhance role specialization and alignment, yielding higher accuracy and better efficiency than prior RL-based and multi-agent code generation methods.

What carries the argument

The Planner-Coder paradigm combined with collaboration-aware reinforcement learning via Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) to improve inter-agent coordination and role specialization.

If this is right

Consistent accuracy gains on code generation benchmarks of varying difficulty when using three different base models.
Lower execution time and memory consumption relative to existing RL and multi-agent baselines.
The same training stage can be attached to other multi-agent setups such as retrieval and debugging agents.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The same planning-execution split and group optimization might reduce coordination failures in agent teams that solve non-code tasks such as theorem proving.
If GRPO remains stable when more than two roles are added, it could reduce the engineering cost of building larger multi-agent systems.
Testing the framework on safety-critical code domains would show whether the reported efficiency gains also lower error rates that matter in practice.

Load-bearing premise

That introducing a simple Planner-Coder division and training it with GRPO is enough to create stronger role specialization and coordination than existing multi-agent code methods.

What would settle it

Reproducing the benchmark experiments and finding that CoRe-Code shows no accuracy improvement or higher execution time and memory use than the strongest baseline methods.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.24812 by Qinjian Zhao, Sumon Biswas, Xiaoyu Xia, Zhihao Dou, Zhongwei Wan.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: (a) CoT for code generation. (b) CoRe-Code for code generation. (c) Comparison with different multi-agent systems for code generation. (d) Collaboration Gain values across different models. Both (c) and (d) use Qwen2.5-7B-Coder-Instruct as the base model. More examples can be found in Appendix E.4. with advanced reasoning abilities, including DeepSeek [Guo et al., 2025, 2024], LLaMA [Touvron et al., 2023],… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Overview of CoRe-Code. (a) The Planner agent is optimized to generate effective algorithmic thoughts, while (b) the Coder agent is optimized to translate the given thought into correct and efficient code. conditioned on both other auxiliary agents θauxiliary and qi . The collaboration gain (CG) is defined as CG = 1 − Pcoder(ci | qi) Pcoder(ci | θauxiliary, qi) . (1) Since pass rates lie in [0, 1], the coll… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Algorithmic Thought example. The Planner [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: RL training dynamics of Collaboration Gain for Planner agent across different models. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Impact of RL’s number of rollouts for Planner and Coder agent. Qwen2.5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Computation costs of different methods, where Qwen2.5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_6.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Training dynamics of CoRe-Code, where Qwen2.5-7B-Coder-Instruct is used as the base model. During the reinforcement learning process, we present the training dynamics in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_7.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Large language models (LLMs) have achieved strong performance in code generation, but most methods rely on autoregressive decoding without global planning, often leading to locally coherent yet globally suboptimal solutions (e.g., failing test cases or inefficient complexity). While recent approaches such as Chain-of-Thought (CoT) and multi-agent systems (MAS) introduce planning, their limited role specialization and coordination hinder performance on complex tasks. To address the challenges of coordination and specialization in multi-agent code generation, we propose Collaborative Reinforcement Code (CoRe-Code), a framework for role specialized LLM agents that enhances inter-agent coordination to generate more accurate and efficient code. CoRe-Code adopts a simple Planner-Coder paradigm, where the Planner produces high-level plans and the Coder executes them to generate code. We further introduce a collaboration-aware reinforcement learning stage based on Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) to enhance role specialization and alignment. Experiments show that CoRe-Code outperforms a wide range of existing RL-based and multi-agent methods. In addition, we demonstrate that CoRe-Code can generalize to other multi-agent frameworks (e.g., Retrieval and Debugging agents), highlighting its flexibility and scalability. We evaluate CoRe-Code on multiple benchmarks of varying difficulty using three base models. Compared to existing baselines, the results show consistent improvements in accuracy, while also achieving higher efficiency in terms of execution time and memory usage, demonstrating the effectiveness and practicality of CoRe-Code.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

CoRe-Code adds a Planner-Coder split plus GRPO training to multi-agent code generation, but the abstract supplies no numbers or protocol so the outperformance claim cannot be checked.

read the letter

The paper's core proposal is a two-role setup where one LLM plans at a high level and another writes the code, followed by a Group Relative Policy Optimization stage meant to improve how the roles coordinate. It claims this beats prior RL and multi-agent baselines on accuracy while using less time and memory, and that the same training stage can be dropped into other agent frameworks.

What stands out as new is the explicit use of GRPO to align the planner and coder rather than treating them as independent. The motivation from local coherence versus global test failures is stated clearly, and the generalization test to retrieval and debugging agents is a straightforward way to show flexibility.

The abstract does not include any quantitative results, baseline lists, statistical details, or even a sketch of the reward function, so the performance claims remain unverified. That absence is the main limitation; without those numbers it is impossible to judge whether the gains are meaningful or whether the baselines were competitive. The assumption that the simple split plus GRPO will produce better specialization on hard tasks is reasonable on paper but needs the actual runs to evaluate.

The work is aimed at groups already building multi-agent systems for code. A reader who wants a concrete recipe for adding collaboration-aware RL could extract the high-level structure, but anyone needing reproducible evidence will have to wait for the full experiments.

The paper deserves peer review because the idea is concrete enough that referees can check the implementation and results directly. I would send it out rather than desk reject.

Referee Report

3 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes CoRe-Code, a multi-agent framework for LLM-based code generation that adopts a Planner-Coder paradigm and introduces collaboration-aware reinforcement learning via Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) to improve role specialization, inter-agent coordination, and global optimality. It claims consistent outperformance over RL-based and multi-agent baselines on multiple code-generation benchmarks of varying difficulty (using three base models), plus gains in accuracy, execution time, and memory usage, and generalization to other agent frameworks such as retrieval and debugging agents.

Significance. If the empirical claims are substantiated by properly reported experiments, the work could offer a practical route to addressing coordination failures in multi-agent code generation. The absence of any quantitative results, baseline specifications, or protocol details in the provided text, however, leaves the significance unassessable.

major comments (3)

[Abstract] Abstract: the central claim that 'Experiments show that CoRe-Code outperforms a wide range of existing RL-based and multi-agent methods' and delivers 'consistent improvements in accuracy' is unsupported by any numerical results, baseline names, metrics, error bars, or statistical tests. This is load-bearing for the entire contribution.
[Abstract] Abstract: no experimental protocol, benchmark names, base-model sizes, training details for GRPO, or measurement procedures for execution time and memory are supplied, preventing evaluation of the efficiency and practicality claims.
[Abstract] Abstract (proposed framework paragraph): the assertion that the Planner-Coder paradigm plus GRPO 'enhance role specialization and alignment' is presented without any ablation, coordination metric, or comparison showing that these components are responsible for the reported gains.

minor comments (1)

[Abstract] Abstract: 'GRPO' is introduced without expansion or citation on first use.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

Thank you for your review. We agree with the points raised regarding the abstract and will make revisions to include more specific details from the full manuscript to substantiate the claims.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the central claim that 'Experiments show that CoRe-Code outperforms a wide range of existing RL-based and multi-agent methods' and delivers 'consistent improvements in accuracy' is unsupported by any numerical results, baseline names, metrics, error bars, or statistical tests. This is load-bearing for the entire contribution.

Authors: We accept this criticism. While the full paper contains the quantitative results, baselines, metrics, and statistical analyses in the experimental evaluation, the abstract does not. We will revise the abstract to include key numerical results, specific baseline names, and mention of error bars or significance where applicable. revision: yes
Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: no experimental protocol, benchmark names, base-model sizes, training details for GRPO, or measurement procedures for execution time and memory are supplied, preventing evaluation of the efficiency and practicality claims.

Authors: We agree that these details are missing from the abstract. The manuscript specifies the benchmarks, base models (three different LLMs), GRPO training procedure, and measurement methods for efficiency metrics in the main text. We will incorporate concise mentions of these into the revised abstract. revision: yes
Referee: [Abstract] Abstract (proposed framework paragraph): the assertion that the Planner-Coder paradigm plus GRPO 'enhance role specialization and alignment' is presented without any ablation, coordination metric, or comparison showing that these components are responsible for the reported gains.

Authors: The full manuscript includes ablations and metrics for role specialization and coordination to support this. We will update the abstract to reference these supporting experiments or adjust the wording to reflect the evidence provided in the paper. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity

full rationale

The manuscript presents CoRe-Code as an empirical framework (Planner-Coder paradigm plus GRPO collaboration-aware RL) whose central claims are performance improvements on code-generation benchmarks. No equations, derivations, fitted parameters, or first-principles results appear in the provided text. All statements reduce to experimental comparisons rather than any self-definitional, fitted-input, or self-citation chain that collapses to the inputs by construction. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract supplies no mathematical content, fitted parameters, background axioms, or new postulated entities; all elements are descriptive of an empirical framework.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5792 in / 1049 out tokens · 44529 ms · 2026-06-30T11:56:26.687239+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

DAIN: Dynamic Agent-Based Interaction Network for Efficient and Collaborative Multimodal Reasoning
cs.CL 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0

DAIN reframes multimodal fusion as dynamic agent collaboration with sparse activation, claiming SOTA results including 2.6% accuracy gain on ADNI across five benchmarks.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

21 extracted references · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

Initialize an empty result container (conceptually a list of characters or substrings)
[2]

Branch: 19

Traverse the input string from the first to the last character. Branch: 19
[3]

Else, append the character itself unchanged

For each character: If the character is a space (‘’ ’‘), append ‘’%20’‘ to the result. Else, append the character itself unchanged. Loop:
[4]

Final Step:

A loop is required to process each character in the input string sequentially until the end is reached. Final Step:
[5]

Combine all elements in the result container into a single string
[6]

%20") else: result.append(char) return

Return this new string. </plan> defreplaceSpaces(s): result = [] forcharins: ifchar == ’␣’: result.append("%20") else: result.append(char) return"".join(result) 20 CoRe-Code(Sample 2) Q: Write a function to get a lucid number smaller than or equal to n. <plan> Input: - n (an integer): The upper bound for searching lucid numbers, where n >= 1. Output: The ...
[7]

Examples: 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 6, 10, 14, 15, 21, 28, etc

Define Lucid Number: A lucid number is a positive integer whose prime factors are only 2, 3, 5, or 7. Examples: 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 6, 10, 14, 15, 21, 28, etc
[8]

Sequence (Step-by-Step Process):
[9]

Start with the base set {1}, since 1 is trivially lucid
[10]

Generate new lucid numbers by multiplying existing ones by 2, 3, 5, or 7
[11]

Continue generating until values exceed n
[12]

Store all generated lucid numbers in a data structure (e.g., list or heap)
[13]

Select the maximum lucid number that is <= n
[14]

If n itself is lucid -> directly return n

Branch (Conditions): If n < 1 -> no lucid number exists, return 0 or handle as invalid input. If n itself is lucid -> directly return n. Otherwise, search among generated lucid numbers for the largest <= n
[15]

Continue until no new lucid numbers can be generated under the bound

Loop (Repetition): Use a loop or priority-based expansion to multiply numbers repeatedly until exceeding n. Continue until no new lucid numbers can be generated under the bound. </plan> deflargest_lucid_number(n): ifn < 1: return0 primes = [2, 3, 5, 7] lucid = {1} queue = [1] whilequeue: current = queue.pop() forpinprimes: new_val = current * p ifnew_val ...
[16]

Output is a single integer, representing the number of valid paths modulo or exact (depending on constraints)

Input-Output Structure Input defines a stacked structure of L layers, each with N cities, connected in a complete bipartite way to the next layer with uniform costs per destination. Output is a single integer, representing the number of valid paths modulo or exact (depending on constraints)
[17]

Solving Logic Sequence:
[18]

Model path costs as sequences of choices across L transitions (from entry to exit)
[19]

Since costs depend only on the chosen city in each layer, the total cost is the sum of L chosen city costs (one from each layer)
[20]

Limitations

The number of paths equals the number of such sequences, which is $N^L$. But we only count sequences whose total cost % M == 0. Branch: For each possible remainder modulo M, decide whether adding a new city’s cost keeps us on a path toward divisibility. Use a dynamic programming (DP) state: ‘dp[layer][r] = number of ways to reach remainder r after process...
[21]

Guidelines: • The answer [N/A] means that the paper does not involve crowdsourcing nor research with human subjects

Institutional review board (IRB) approvals or equivalent for research with human subjects Question: Does the paper describe potential risks incurred by study participants, whether such risks were disclosed to the subjects, and whether Institutional Review Board (IRB) approvals (or an equivalent approval/review based on the requirements of your country or ...

[1] [1]

Initialize an empty result container (conceptually a list of characters or substrings)

[2] [2]

Branch: 19

Traverse the input string from the first to the last character. Branch: 19

[3] [3]

Else, append the character itself unchanged

For each character: If the character is a space (‘’ ’‘), append ‘’%20’‘ to the result. Else, append the character itself unchanged. Loop:

[4] [4]

Final Step:

A loop is required to process each character in the input string sequentially until the end is reached. Final Step:

[5] [5]

Combine all elements in the result container into a single string

[6] [6]

%20") else: result.append(char) return

Return this new string. </plan> defreplaceSpaces(s): result = [] forcharins: ifchar == ’␣’: result.append("%20") else: result.append(char) return"".join(result) 20 CoRe-Code(Sample 2) Q: Write a function to get a lucid number smaller than or equal to n. <plan> Input: - n (an integer): The upper bound for searching lucid numbers, where n >= 1. Output: The ...

[7] [7]

Examples: 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 6, 10, 14, 15, 21, 28, etc

Define Lucid Number: A lucid number is a positive integer whose prime factors are only 2, 3, 5, or 7. Examples: 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 6, 10, 14, 15, 21, 28, etc

[8] [8]

Sequence (Step-by-Step Process):

[9] [9]

Start with the base set {1}, since 1 is trivially lucid

[10] [10]

Generate new lucid numbers by multiplying existing ones by 2, 3, 5, or 7

[11] [11]

Continue generating until values exceed n

[12] [12]

Store all generated lucid numbers in a data structure (e.g., list or heap)

[13] [13]

Select the maximum lucid number that is <= n

[14] [14]

If n itself is lucid -> directly return n

Branch (Conditions): If n < 1 -> no lucid number exists, return 0 or handle as invalid input. If n itself is lucid -> directly return n. Otherwise, search among generated lucid numbers for the largest <= n

[15] [15]

Continue until no new lucid numbers can be generated under the bound

Loop (Repetition): Use a loop or priority-based expansion to multiply numbers repeatedly until exceeding n. Continue until no new lucid numbers can be generated under the bound. </plan> deflargest_lucid_number(n): ifn < 1: return0 primes = [2, 3, 5, 7] lucid = {1} queue = [1] whilequeue: current = queue.pop() forpinprimes: new_val = current * p ifnew_val ...

[16] [16]

Output is a single integer, representing the number of valid paths modulo or exact (depending on constraints)

Input-Output Structure Input defines a stacked structure of L layers, each with N cities, connected in a complete bipartite way to the next layer with uniform costs per destination. Output is a single integer, representing the number of valid paths modulo or exact (depending on constraints)

[17] [17]

Solving Logic Sequence:

[18] [18]

Model path costs as sequences of choices across L transitions (from entry to exit)

[19] [19]

Since costs depend only on the chosen city in each layer, the total cost is the sum of L chosen city costs (one from each layer)

[20] [20]

Limitations

The number of paths equals the number of such sequences, which is $N^L$. But we only count sequences whose total cost % M == 0. Branch: For each possible remainder modulo M, decide whether adding a new city’s cost keeps us on a path toward divisibility. Use a dynamic programming (DP) state: ‘dp[layer][r] = number of ways to reach remainder r after process...

[21] [21]

Guidelines: • The answer [N/A] means that the paper does not involve crowdsourcing nor research with human subjects

Institutional review board (IRB) approvals or equivalent for research with human subjects Question: Does the paper describe potential risks incurred by study participants, whether such risks were disclosed to the subjects, and whether Institutional Review Board (IRB) approvals (or an equivalent approval/review based on the requirements of your country or ...