In the main paper, we use ChatGPT as the LLM judge for final evaluation, for its efficiency, price and accessibility for the community to reproduce our results. As pointed out in Chiang et al. (2023), LLMs evaluators, although largely consistent with human preferences, may have their own biases. Therefore, to make sure our experimental results are solid, we also use GPT-4 as the judge and compare against the performance gap in CRR between different baselines and the Self-Instruct method. The comparison results in Table 6 demonstrates the agreement of two LLM-based judges and confirms the superior performance of CodecLM against comparing methods.