CoTran: An LLM-Based Code Translator Using Reinforcement Learning with Feedback from Compiler and Symbolic Execution
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we present an LLM-based code translation method and an associated tool called CoTran, that translates whole-programs from one high-level programming language to another. Existing LLM-based code translation methods lack training to ensure that the translated code reliably compiles or bears substantial functional equivalence to the input code. In our work, we fine-tune an LLM using reinforcement learning, incorporating compiler feedback, and symbolic execution (symexec)-based testing feedback to assess functional equivalence between the input and output programs. The idea is to guide an LLM during fine-tuning, via compiler and symexec-based testing feedback, by letting it know how far it is from producing perfect translations. We conduct extensive experiments comparing CoTran with 14 other code translation tools, including human-written transpilers, LLM-based translation tools, and ChatGPT. Using a benchmark of over 57,000 code pairs in Java and Python, we demonstrate that CoTran outperforms the other tools on relevant metrics such as compilation accuracy (CompAcc) and functional equivalence accuracy (FEqAcc). For example, in Python-to-Java translation, CoTran achieves 48.68% FEqAcc and 76.98% CompAcc, whereas the nearest competing tool (PLBART-base) gets 38.26% and 75.77% respectively. Additionally, CoTran, built on top of CodeT5, improves FEqAcc by +14.89% and CompAcc by +8.14% for Python-to-Java (resp., +12.94% and +4.30% for Java-to-Python).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".