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
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%. ...
Forward citations
Cited by 3 Pith papers
-
RAG or Fine-tuning? A Comparative Study on LCMs-based Code Completion in Industry
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.
-
Reasoning as a Resource: Optimizing Fast and Slow Thinking in Code Generation Models
Reasoning depth in code LLMs should be managed as a controllable resource across synthetic data generation, benchmarking, and deployment, rather than left implicit.
-
Let's Take Esoteric Programming Languages Seriously
The paper argues that esolangs improve programming awareness and proposes five motivations (expressivity, efficiency, education, economy, exploration) for language design.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.