Feedback Over Form: Why Execution Feedback Matters More Than Pipeline Topology in 1-3B Code Generation

arXiv:2604.21950v1 Announce Type: cross
Abstract: Small language models (1-3B) are practical to run locally, but individually limited on harder code generation tasks. We ask whether composing them into pipelines can recover some of that lost capability. We study code generation pipelines built from 1-3B models with execution feedback, and use a NEAT-inspired evolutionary search to test whether more complex pipeline structure helps beyond a simple refinement loop. We evaluate on HumanEval (164 problems) and sanitized MBPP (427 problems), all with local inference on a single laptop. Self-refinement with execution feedback improves code generation by more than 4 standard deviations on both benchmarks. The gains are narrow in mechanism: refinement fixes many runtime errors (especially NameError and SyntaxError), but rarely fixes logic errors such as AssertionError. Within our tested general-purpose model pool, generator identity mattered less than refiner capability: a 1.5B generator paired with a 3B refiner matched a 3B model doing both roles. Early stopping is essential; without it, every iteration is net-negative. The code-specialized models outperform every general-purpose pipeline configuration, suggesting model specialization matters more than pipeline architecture. Preliminary text-only pipeline experiments without execution feedback did not show gains at this scale. In our constrained search space, evolutionary search mostly rediscovered the same simple generate-execute-refine loop we found manually, with no clearly significant gain from added topology. Single-evaluation fitness inflates results by 5-7 percent, selecting lucky genomes over good ones. On these benchmarks at 1-3B scale, execution feedback mattered more than added pipeline complexity in determining whether composition helped.