With the impressive reasoning and text generation capabilities of large language models (LLMs), methods leveraging multiple LLMs to debate each other have garnered increasing attention. However, existing debate-based approaches remain limited in effectiveness in structured and detailed domains represented by code generation due to several reasons: 1) Reliance on different instances of the same LLM for debate, neglecting the potential benefits of integrating diverse models with varied internal knowledge for more comprehensive code generation, 2) under-utilization of test cases, and 3) reliance on third-party LLM moderators for result consolidation and decision-making, probably introducing hallucinations and judgment errors. To address these challenges, we propose DebateCoder to collect intelligence of LLMs via test case-driven debate for code generation. In DebateCoder, test cases serve as a medium for models to analyze code and identify bugs, while opposing models generate test cases to challenge each other’s code during the debate process. These test cases, along with their execution results, are elaborately leveraged to refine and enhance the code through a novel contrastive analysis process. Furthermore, DebateCoder leverages test case outcomes to assess code quality and determine convergence criteria. Unlike previous approaches, DebateCoder emphasizes the collaborative improvement of both models through competitive debate and interactive analysis. Abundant experimental results on two datasets demonstrate the effectiveness of DebateCoder.

Debugging is a critical aspect of LLM’s coding ability. Early debugging efforts primarily focused on code-level analysis, which often falls short when addressing complex programming errors that require a deeper understanding of algorithmic logic. Recent advancements in large language models (LLMs) have shifted attention toward leveraging natural language reasoning to enhance code-related tasks. However, two fundamental questions remain unanswered: What type of natural language format is most effective for debugging tasks? And what specific benefits does natural language reasoning bring to the debugging process? In this paper, we introduce NL-DEBUGGING, a novel framework that employs natural language as an intermediate representation to improve code debugging. By debugging at a natural language level, we demonstrate that NL-DEBUGGING outperforms traditional debugging methods and enables a broader modification space through direct refinement guided by execution feedback. Our findings highlight the potential of natural language reasoning to advance automated code debugging and address complex programming challenges.

To address these limitations, we propose BDC, a novel framework that Boosts reasoning exploration via multi-agent collaboration, Disentangles heterogeneous data into specialized experts, and Customizes solutions through dynamic model composition. BDC integrates a Monte Carlo Tree-of-Agents algorithm, where multiple LLMs mutually verify and refine reasoning paths through reflection-guided pruning, enabling efficient exploration of high-quality solutions. To handle data diversity, we cluster problems by latent semantics, train composable LoRA experts on each cluster, and deploy an input-aware hypernetwork to dynamically merge these experts into tailored solvers. Experiments on APPS and CodeContest benchmarks demonstrate BDC’s superiority: it achieves up to 73.8% accuracy on hard problems, outperforming state-of-the-art methods like LATS and RethinkMCTS by 9–15%. This work lays the groundwork for advancing LLM capabilities in complex reasoning tasks, offering a novel System2-to-System1 solution.