Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 cited by

Exploring Multi-Lingual Bias of Large Code Models in Code Generation

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2404.19368 v1 pith:OPFXAVW5 submitted 2024-04-30 cs.SE

classification cs.SE
keywords lcmscodebiasmulti-lingualgenerationgenerateinstructionslanguage
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Code generation aims to synthesize code and fulfill functional requirements based on natural language (NL) specifications, which can greatly improve development efficiency. In the era of large language models (LLMs), large code models (LCMs) have been recently proposed to generate source code. LCMs can generate highly feasible solutions for programming problems described in natural language. Despite the effectiveness, we observe a noticeable multilingual bias in the generation performance of LCMs. Specifically, LCMs demonstrate proficiency in generating solutions when provided with instructions in English, yet may falter when faced with semantically equivalent instructions in other NLs such as Chinese. Moreover, the ability of LCMs to generate code exhibits variety across different programming languages (PLs), such as Python and C++. The observed phenomenon indicates the presence of multi-lingual bias within the generative capabilities of LCMs, which has remained unexplored. In this paper, we aim to investigate the multi-lingual bias that exists in current LCMs. First, we initiate our investigation by constructing the first multi-lingual evaluation benchmark X-HumanEval-X, enabling us to systematically evaluate the extent of multi-lingual bias that exists in current LCMs. In our large-scale experiments on nine popular LCMs, we observe a pronounced multi-lingual bias of LCMs in code generation, including multi-NL and multi-PL bias. Specifically, when using Chinese instructions, the code generation capabilities of LCMs decrease by at least 13% in terms of the Pass@1 metric. Furthermore, LCMs perform variously across different programming languages, e.g., the performance gap between Python and C++ reaches as high as 20.9%. ...

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. RAG or Fine-tuning? A Comparative Study on LCMs-based Code Completion in Industry

    cs.SE 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    On a 160,000-file industrial C++ codebase, BM25-based retrieval-augmented generation outperformed fine-tuning for line-level code completion, and combining RAG with fine-tuning further improved accuracy.

  2. Reasoning as a Resource: Optimizing Fast and Slow Thinking in Code Generation Models

    cs.SE 2025-06 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    Reasoning depth in code LLMs should be managed as a controllable resource across synthetic data generation, benchmarking, and deployment, rather than left implicit.

  3. Let's Take Esoteric Programming Languages Seriously

    cs.PL 2025-05 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    The paper argues that esolangs improve programming awareness and proposes five motivations (expressivity, efficiency, education, economy, exploration) for language design.

Pith tools