Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 104 references

A Systematic Literature Review on Neural Code Translation

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper claims to be the first comprehensive systematic literature review of neural code translation, synthesizing 57 studies from 2020 to 2025 across seven dimensions to map techniques and unresolved challenges.

desk verdict A competent, genuinely useful first map of neural code translation, with a search-coverage gap that is real but fixable before it can be called comprehensive. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.07425 v1 pith:HOHRKVCR submitted 2025-05-12 cs.SE

Xiang Chen , Jiacheng Xue , Xiaofei Xie , Caokai Liang , Xiaolin Ju This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.SE
keywords neuralcodetranslationsystematicliteraturereviewlargelanguagemodelsdeeplearningmigrationmodelingevaluationmetricsbenchmarks
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper tries to establish that neural code translation had no comprehensive systematic literature review and that this review now provides the missing map, covering 57 primary studies published from 2020 to 2025. It synthesizes the field along seven axes: task characteristics, data preprocessing, code modeling, model construction, post-processing, evaluation subjects, and evaluation metrics. If the review is right, researchers and practitioners now have a baseline of what methods dominate, which benchmarks are standard, and which problems remain open.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the systematic review protocol itself: an automated search over six academic databases with a query combining code-translation terms with deep-learning and large-language-model terms, backward and forward snowballing, inclusion and exclusion criteria requiring empirical evaluation, and a ten-item quality-assessment checklist with an 8-out-of-10 inclusion threshold. The protocol yields 57 primary studies, and a fixed seven-question data-extraction scheme organises the synthesis. This machinery is what turns scattered papers into comparable statistics and research-gap conclusions.

What would settle it

Re-run the review's search string plus candidate synonyms such as 'transpilation', 'cross-language migration', and 'program conversion' in the same six academic databases, applying the same inclusion criteria and 8-out-of-10 quality threshold; if this yields a non-trivial set of qualifying studies outside the 57, the review's comprehensiveness claim fails. Independently, one could re-score the 57 studies against the ten quality criteria; a study scoring below 8 would weaken the reported representativeness.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that prior work on automatically translating source code from one programming language to another using neural models had not been summarised in a comprehensive, systematic way, and that this paper fills that gap by collecting 57 studies and analysing them across seven dimensions. The review reports that the field centres on function-level translation among statically typed languages such as Java, C++, and Python; that fine-tuning pre-trained models is the most common construction strategy; and that BLEU and CodeBLEU are the dominant evaluation metrics despite known limitations. It also identifies open challenges: scarce parallel corpora, low-resource languages, data leakage, repository-level context, and security of translation models.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the search string, snowballing, and 8-out-of-10 quality threshold together capture the relevant literature on neural code translation; if a substantial body of work using different terminology such as 'transpilation' or 'cross-language migration' is missed, the trend statistics and gap conclusions do not describe the whole field.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Researchers entering neural code translation can use the seven-perspective taxonomy as a structured baseline of existing methods and benchmarks.
  • Fine-tuning pre-trained models is the current default construction strategy, with prompt engineering as a close, cost-effective alternative, while multi-agent and retrieval-augmented methods remain early-stage.
  • TransCoder and CodeXGLUE are the de facto evaluation standards, so new work should expect to compare against them.
  • Class-level, file-level, and repository-level translation, plus low-resource languages, are the review's identified open areas; progress there would directly address the field's unserved migration needs.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • My inference: because the review shows static metrics BLEU and CodeBLEU are the most common while execution-based metrics appear less frequently, reported quality improvements may partly measure textual resemblance rather than runnable correctness; a neighbouring test would correlate BLEU improvements with pass@k changes on the same benchmarks.
  • My inference: the sharp rise in 2023 and 2024 publications and the heavy reliance on arXiv submissions suggest the field's empirical base is consolidating around a few benchmarks; if so, performance saturation on TransCoder and CodeXGLUE could push the next wave toward repository-level evaluation.
  • My inference: the review's emphasis on low-resource languages and repository-level context points to a testable target: building a large synthetic parallel corpus for a pair such as Julia and Python and measuring whether transfer learning plus synthesized tests closes the gap to high-resource pairs.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This manuscript reports a systematic literature review (SLR) of neural code translation. It claims to be the first comprehensive SLR on this topic, selects 57 primary studies published between 2020 and 2025 from six databases, and analyzes them along seven research questions covering task characteristics, data preprocessing, code modeling, model construction, post-processing, evaluation subjects, and evaluation metrics. The paper reports quantitative trends (e.g., 71.9% bidirectional translation, 73.7% function-level granularity, 77.2% plain-text modeling, 42.1% BLEU usage), identifies open challenges (low-resource language translation, repository-level translation, data leakage, security, code repair and refinement), and proposes future directions.

Significance. If the 57-study set is representative, the review provides a useful structured map of an active area: it compiles and classifies recent work, quantifies methodological choices, and catalogs datasets and metrics. The manuscript follows a named SLR guideline (Kitchenham), defines research questions, uses two independent extractors, applies explicit inclusion/exclusion and quality criteria, and includes a threats-to-validity section. The main quantitative findings are novel in their granularity and are falsifiable. However, the scientific value is conditional on the completeness and auditability of the study selection; the paper's own Section 6 acknowledges the 'Incomplete literature search' threat but does not provide the evidence needed to retire it. The contribution is therefore potentially strong but currently under-supported.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.2 (Search Strategy)] The search string is too narrow to support the 'comprehensive' claim. It contains the terms 'code translation', 'code-to-code translation', 'program translation', and 'code migration' combined with 'deep learning' or 'large language model', but omits common alternative terminology such as 'transpilation', 'transpiler', 'source-to-source translation', 'cross-language migration', 'program porting', and 'code conversion'. The paper argues in Section 3.2 that snowballing can recover studies using alternative terminology, but backward and forward snowballing can only find papers that are connected by references or citations to the initially retrieved set; a relevant paper that uses none of the included terms and is not linked to the initial set is systematically missed. The manuscript also does not report how many studies were found by the automated search versus by snowballing, or the per-database hit counts, so the completeness of the 57-study set cannot be audited. Since the trend statistics in Section 4 (e.g., 71.9% bidirectional, 73.7% function-level) and the open-challenge list in Section 5 are computed over this set, a systematically missed segment could change the main conclusions. I request a rerun with an expanded keyword set, a PRISMA-style flow diagram with search and snowballing counts, and a sensitivity analysis of the key RQ statistics.
  2. [Section 3.3 (Study Selection and Quality Assessment)] The quality assessment is not auditable. The ten criteria QA1-QA10 in Table 1 are introduced as adopted from prior SLRs, but the paper provides no external validation of their construct validity and no calibration against known high- or low-quality studies. The scoring of binary items as 1/-1 and ternary items as 1/0/-1 makes the 8/10 threshold extremely strict (a single 'No' and one 'Partially' yields 7), and QA10 for arXiv papers ('does it satisfy the quality criteria?') is circular because it refers to the same unvalidated instrument. In addition, the paper does not report per-study QA scores, the number of studies that passed each stage, inter-rater agreement on QA, or how disagreements were resolved. Without this information, the statement that the final set is 'representative, rigorous, and of high reference value' cannot be verified, and the threshold directly shapes every result in Section 4.
  3. [Section 4.1 and Table 2 (RQ1)] The RQ1 statistics are not reproducible from the presented table. Table 2 counts the same study in multiple language-pair cells (for example, a study on Java↔Python and Python↔C++ appears in multiple rows), and the text states that Tang et al. [74] and Lano et al. [43] are excluded from the table, yet the percentages in the RQ1 summary divide by 57. The paper should report the per-study coding (one row per included study with all seven RQ dimensions) in an appendix or online artifact and state clearly whether percentages are computed over studies or over study-category occurrences. This will also allow readers to verify the subsequent claims in Section 5.
  4. [Sections 1 and 7 (Novelty Claim)] The claim of being the first comprehensive SLR is not contextualized against the closest prior work. The paper includes [57] ('On ML-based program translation: perils and promises') as a primary study and cites code-generation surveys [32, 89] for methodology, but it does not discuss how this SLR differs from, or improves on, those earlier reviews in coverage, research questions, or conclusions. Because the novelty claim is a central contribution, a dedicated comparison with prior surveys and a statement of the incremental contribution are needed.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3.2] The exact search string is given only in prose; providing the per-database queries with field restrictions and year filters (since the paper claims coverage of 2020-2025) would help reproducibility.
  2. [Section 3.3] There is a typo in the exclusion criteria list: 'Non-English papers.:' has a double colon.
  3. [Section 4.1 and Table 2] The text mentions Tang et al. [74] and Lano et al. [43] as bidirectional studies excluded from Table 2; please clarify why Lano et al. [43], which is described as model-driven engineering, satisfies the inclusion criterion 'Focus on neural code translation'.
  4. [Table 2] Several table entries have missing spaces, for example 'C++↔CUDA[76]' and 'Solidity→Move[39]'.
  5. [Figure 3b] The word cloud of venues is difficult to read; a frequency table of venues would be more informative and precise.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the review's RQ statistics are descriptive summaries of an explicitly selected set of 57 studies, and the 'first SLR' claim is a scope claim, not a derived prediction.

full rationale

This is a systematic literature review, so the derivation chain is a study-selection-and-synthesis procedure rather than a formal model. The RQ1-RQ7 percentages (e.g., 71.9% bidirectional, 73.7% function-level, 77.2% plain-text modeling) are arithmetic summaries of the 57 included studies; they are not predictions and cannot reduce to the search string or quality criteria by construction. The central assertion that no comprehensive SLR exists is a scoping claim, explicitly qualified with 'to the best of our knowledge' (Section 1), and it is not derived from the selected studies. The search strategy in Section 3.2 and the 8/10 quality threshold in Section 3.3 are methodological choices; Section 6 explicitly acknowledges the 'Incomplete literature search' threat and asserts snowballing as mitigation, which is a completeness limitation rather than a circular step. One cited primary study, Yang et al. [88], includes co-author Xiang Chen, but it is used as one of 57 reviewed papers (e.g., for data deduplication and adversarial augmentation) and is not load-bearing for the review's taxonomy, statistics, or conclusions. No fitted parameters, imported uniqueness theorems, ansatz-by-citation, or definitional equivalences were found. The review is therefore self-contained as a synthesis of its explicitly reported corpus.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The review's conclusions rest primarily on the completeness of the search and the validity of the quality threshold. These are methodological assumptions rather than measured quantities. No fitted parameters or invented entities are involved.

free parameters (2)
  • Quality assessment inclusion threshold = 8 out of 10
    Chosen by the authors in Section 3.3; studies scoring below 8 are excluded, directly determining the 57-study set and all downstream trend analysis.
  • Publication year window = 2020 to 2025
    Defined in Section 1; earlier neural translation work (e.g., 2018-2019) is excluded, which may affect conclusions about field trends.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Kitchenham's guidelines are a valid and appropriate methodology for conducting systematic literature reviews in software engineering.
    Adopted in Section 3; if this methodology is inappropriate for the research questions, the review's validity is undermined.
  • ad hoc to paper The ten quality assessment criteria (QA1-QA10) in Table 1 are valid proxies for study quality.
    These criteria are defined by the authors following Hou et al. [27], but the scoring and arbitrary threshold of 8 are not externally validated.
  • domain assumption The selected digital libraries (IEEE Xplore, ACM DL, SpringerLink, ScienceDirect, arXiv, Google Scholar) provide comprehensive coverage of neural code translation research.
    Assumed in Section 3.2; missing databases such as Scopus or Web of Science could omit relevant studies.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Systematic Literature Review on Neural Code Translation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HOHRKVCR

@misc{pith2026250507425,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Systematic Literature Review on Neural Code Translation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HOHRKVCR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.07425}
}
read the original abstract

Code translation aims to convert code from one programming language to another automatically. It is motivated by the need for multi-language software development and legacy system migration. In recent years, neural code translation has gained significant attention, driven by rapid advancements in deep learning and large language models. Researchers have proposed various techniques to improve neural code translation quality. However, to the best of our knowledge, no comprehensive systematic literature review has been conducted to summarize the key techniques and challenges in this field. To fill this research gap, we collected 57 primary studies covering the period 2020~2025 on neural code translation. These studies are analyzed from seven key perspectives: task characteristics, data preprocessing, code modeling, model construction, post-processing, evaluation subjects, and evaluation metrics. Our analysis reveals current research trends, identifies unresolved challenges, and shows potential directions for future work. These findings can provide valuable insights for both researchers and practitioners in the field of neural code translation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.07425 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Illustrative example of code translation from Java to Python [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overview of the primary study search and collection process [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Publication trends and major venues, (a) publication number over different years, (b) word cloud of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Task characteristic summary of neural code translation in terms of code granularity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Data preprocessing summary of neural code translation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Code modeling summary of neural code translation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Code translation model construction summary of neural code translation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Evaluation subject summary of neural code translation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Top-5 evaluation metrics used for neural code translation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

104 extracted references · 46 canonical work pages

  1. [88]

    Guang Yang, Yu Zhou, Xiangyu Zhang, Xiang Chen, Tingting Han, and Taolue Chen. 2025. Assessing and improving syntactic adversarial robustness of pre-trained models for code translation. Information and Software Technology ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol., Vol. 1, No. 1, Article . Publication date: September 2024. 36 Chen, et al. (2025), 107699

    work page 2025

  2. [74]

    Zilu Tang, Mayank Agarwal, Alexander Shypula, Bailin Wang, Derry Wijaya, Jie Chen, and Yoon Kim. 2023. Explain- then-translate: an analysis on improving program translation with self-generated explanations. In Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing . 1741–1788

    work page 2023

  3. [43]

    Kevin Lano and Hanan Siala. 2024. Using model-driven engineering to automate software language translation. Automated Software Engineering 31, 1 (2024), 20

    work page 2024

  4. [57]

    Aniketh Malyala, Katelyn Zhou, Baishakhi Ray, and Saikat Chakraborty. 2023. On ML-based program translation: perils and promises. In 2023 IEEE/ACM 45th International Conference on Software Engineering: New Ideas and Emerging Results (ICSE-NIER). IEEE, 60–65

    work page 2023

  5. [1]

    Seif Abukhalaf, Mohammad Hamdaqa, and Foutse Khomh. 2023. On Codex prompt engineering for OCL generation: an empirical study. In 2023 IEEE/ACM 20th International Conference on Mining Software Repositories (MSR) . IEEE, 148–157

    2023

  6. [2]

    Mayank Agarwal, Kartik Talamadupula, Fernando Martinez, Stephanie Houde, Michael Muller, John Richards, Steven I Ross, and Justin D Weisz. 2021. Using document similarity methods to create parallel datasets for code translation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.05423 (2021)

    arXiv 2021

  7. [3]

    Sk Hasane Ahammad, Ruth Ramya Kalangi, S Nagendram, Syed Inthiyaz, P Poorna Priya, Osama S Faragallah, Alsharef Mohammad, Mahmoud MA Eid, and Ahmed Nabih Zaki Rashed. 2024. Improved neural machine translation using Natural Language Processing (NLP). Multimedia Tools and Applications 83, 13 (2024), 39335–39348

    2024

  8. [4]

    Wasi Ahmad, Saikat Chakraborty, Baishakhi Ray, and Kai-Wei Chang. 2021. Unified Pre-training for Program Understanding and Generation. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies . 2655–2668

    2021

Show all 104 references
  1. [5]

    Wasi Ahmad, Saikat Chakraborty, Baishakhi Ray, and Kai-Wei Chang. 2023. Summarize and Generate to Back- translate: Unsupervised Translation of Programming Languages. In Proceedings of the 17th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics ...

    2023

  2. [6]

    Wasi Ahmad, Md Golam Rahman Tushar, Saikat Chakraborty, and Kai-Wei Chang. 2023. AVATAR: A Parallel Corpus for Java-Python Program Translation. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2023 . 2268–2281

    2023

  3. [7]

    Manish Bhattarai, Javier E Santos, Shawn Jones, Ayan Biswas, Boian Alexandrov, and Daniel O’Malley. 2024. Enhancing code translation in language models with few-shot learning via retrieval-augmented generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.19619 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  4. [8]

    naturalizing

    Saikat Chakraborty, Toufique Ahmed, Yangruibo Ding, Premkumar T Devanbu, and Baishakhi Ray. 2022. Natgen: gen- erative pre-training by “naturalizing” source code. In Proceedings of the 30th ACM joint european software engineering conference and symposium on the foundations of ...

    2022

  5. [9]

    Binger Chen, Jacek Golebiowski, and Ziawasch Abedjan. 2024. Data augmentation for supervised code translation learning. In Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Mining Software Repositories . 444–456

    2024

  6. [10]

    Mark Chen, Jerry Tworek, Heewoo Jun, Qiming Yuan, Henrique Ponde De Oliveira Pinto, Jared Kaplan, Harri Edwards, Yuri Burda, Nicholas Joseph, Greg Brockman, et al. 2021. Evaluating large language models trained on code. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.03374 (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  7. [11]

    Pinzhen Chen and Gerasimos Lampouras. 2023. Exploring Data Augmentation for Code Generation Tasks. InThe 17th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics . Association for Computational Linguistics, 1542–1550

    2023

  8. [12]

    Xinyun Chen, Chang Liu, and Dawn Song. 2018. Tree-to-tree neural networks for program translation. Advances in neural information processing systems 31 (2018)

    2018

  9. [13]

    Yuchen Chen, Weisong Sun, Chunrong Fang, Zhenpeng Chen, Yifei Ge, Tingxu Han, Quanjun Zhang, Yang Liu, Zhenyu Chen, and Baowen Xu. 2024. Security of Language Models for Code: A Systematic Literature Review. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.15631 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  10. [14]

    David Chisnall. 2013. The challenge of cross-language interoperability. Commun. ACM 56, 12 (2013), 50–56

    2013

  11. [15]

    Kyunghyun Cho, Bart Van Merriënboer, Dzmitry Bahdanau, and Yoshua Bengio. 2014. On the properties of neural machine translation: Encoder-decoder approaches. arXiv preprint arXiv:1409.1259 (2014)

    2014 arXiv

  12. [16]

    Roland Croft, M Ali Babar, and M Mehdi Kholoosi. 2023. Data quality for software vulnerability datasets. In 2023 IEEE/ACM 45th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE) . IEEE, 121–133

    2023

  13. [17]

    Peng Di, Jianguo Li, Hang Yu, Wei Jiang, Wenting Cai, Yang Cao, Chaoyu Chen, Dajun Chen, Hongwei Chen, Liang Chen, et al. 2024. Codefuse-13b: A pretrained multi-lingual code large language model. In Proceedings of the 46th International Conference on Software Engineering: Soft...

    2024

  14. [18]

    Yali Du, Hui Sun, and Ming Li. 2024. A Joint Learning Model with Variational Interaction for Multilingual Program Translation. In Proceedings of the 39th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering . 1907– 1918

    2024

  15. [19]

    Yali Du, Hui Sun, and Ming Li. 2025. Post-Incorporating Code Structural Knowledge into LLMs via In-Context Learning for Code Translation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.22776 (2025)

    2025

  16. [20]

    K Venkatesh Emani, Tejas Deshpande, Karthik Ramachandra, and S Sudarshan. 2017. Dbridge: Translating imperative code to sql. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM International Conference on Management of Data . 1663–1666. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol., Vol. 1, No. 1, Article . Pu...

    2017

  17. [21]

    Hasan Ferit Eniser, Valentin Wüstholz, and Maria Christakis. 2024. Automatically testing functional properties of code translation models. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , Vol. 38. 21055–21062

    2024

  18. [22]

    Zhangyin Feng, Daya Guo, Duyu Tang, Nan Duan, Xiaocheng Feng, Ming Gong, Linjun Shou, Bing Qin, Ting Liu, Daxin Jiang, et al. 2020. CodeBERT: A Pre-Trained Model for Programming and Natural Languages. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Langua...

    2020

  19. [23]

    Matthias Grimmer, Roland Schatz, Chris Seaton, Thomas Würthinger, Mikel Luján, and Hanspeter Mössenböck. 2018. Cross-language interoperability in a multi-language runtime. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems (TOPLAS) 40, 2 (2018), 1–43

    2018

  20. [24]

    Daya Guo, Shuo Ren, Shuai Lu, Zhangyin Feng, Duyu Tang, Shujie Liu, Long Zhou, Nan Duan, Alexey Svy- atkovskiy, Shengyu Fu, et al. 2020. Graphcodebert: Pre-training code representations with data flow. arXiv preprint arXiv:2009.08366 (2020)

    2020 arXiv

  21. [25]

    Junda He, Christoph Treude, and David Lo. 2024. LLM-Based Multi-Agent Systems for Software Engineering: Literature Review, Vision and the Road Ahead. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology (2024)

    2024

  22. [26]

    Jaemin Hong and Sukyoung Ryu. 2025. Type-migrating C-to-Rust translation using a large language model.Empirical Software Engineering 30, 1 (2025), 3

    2025

  23. [27]

    Xinyi Hou, Yanjie Zhao, Yue Liu, Zhou Yang, Kailong Wang, Li Li, Xiapu Luo, David Lo, John Grundy, and Haoyu Wang. 2024. Large language models for software engineering: A systematic literature review. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology (TOSEM) 33, 8 (2024), 1–79

    2024

  24. [28]

    Yufan Huang, Mengnan Qi, Yongqiang Yao, Maoquan Wang, Bin Gu, Colin Clement, and Neel Sundaresan. 2023. Program Translation via Code Distillation. In Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. 10903–10914

    2023

  25. [29]

    Ali Reza Ibrahimzada, Kaiyao Ke, Mrigank Pawagi, Muhammad Salman Abid, Rangeet Pan, Saurabh Sinha, and Reyhaneh Jabbarvand. 2025. AlphaTrans: A Neuro-Symbolic Compositional Approach for Repository-Level Code Translation and Validation. In Proceedings of the 33th ACM joint euro...

    2025

  26. [30]

    Prithwish Jana, Piyush Jha, Haoyang Ju, Gautham Kishore, Aryan Mahajan, and Vijay Ganesh. 2024. Cotran: An llm-based code translator using reinforcement learning with feedback from compiler and symbolic execution. In ECAI 2024. IOS Press, 4011–4018

    2024

  27. [31]

    Akshita Jha and Chandan K Reddy. 2023. Codeattack: Code-based adversarial attacks for pre-trained programming language models. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , Vol. 37. 14892–14900

    2023

  28. [32]

    Juyong Jiang, Fan Wang, Jiasi Shen, Sungju Kim, and Sunghun Kim. 2024. A survey on large language models for code generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.00515 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  29. [33]

    Kai Jiang and Xi Lu. 2020. Natural language processing and its applications in machine translation: a diachronic review. In 2020 IEEE 3rd International Conference of Safe Production and Informatization (IICSPI) . IEEE, 210–214

    2020

  30. [34]

    Xue Jiang, Yihong Dong, Lecheng Wang, Zheng Fang, Qiwei Shang, Ge Li, Zhi Jin, and Wenpin Jiao. 2024. Self- planning code generation with large language models. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology (TOSEM) 33, 7 (2024), 1–30

    2024

  31. [35]

    Mingsheng Jiao, Tingrui Yu, Xuan Li, Guanjie Qiu, Xiaodong Gu, and Beijun Shen. 2023. On the evaluation of neural code translation: Taxonomy and benchmark. In 2023 38th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE). IEEE, 1529–1541

    2023

  32. [36]

    Eric Jin and Yu Sun. 2021. An Algorithm-Adaptive Source Code Converter to Automate the Translation from Python to Java. Computer Science & Information Technology (CS & IT) 11, 17 (2021)

    2021

  33. [37]

    Haolin Jin, Linghan Huang, Haipeng Cai, Jun Yan, Bo Li, and Huaming Chen. 2024. From llms to llm-based agents for software engineering: A survey of current, challenges and future. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.02479 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  34. [38]

    Sathvik Joel, Jie JW Wu, and Fatemeh H Fard. 2024. A survey on llm-based code generation for low-resource and domain-specific programming languages. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.03981 (2024)

    2024

  35. [39]

    Rabimba Karanjai, Lei Xu, and Weidong Shi. 2024. Solmover: Smart contract code translation based on concepts. In Proceedings of the 1st ACM International Conference on AI-Powered Software . 112–121

    2024

  36. [40]

    Saeed Khalafinejad and Seyed-Hassan Mirian-Hosseinabadi. 2010. Rule-based translation of specifications to exe- cutable code. In 2010 2nd IEEE International Conference on Information Management and Engineering . IEEE, 1–4

    2010

  37. [41]

    Barbara Kitchenham, O Pearl Brereton, David Budgen, Mark Turner, John Bailey, and Stephen Linkman. 2009. Systematic literature reviews in software engineering–a systematic literature review. Information and software technology 51, 1 (2009), 7–15

    2009

  38. [42]

    Jahnavi Kumar, Venkata Lakshmana Sasaank Janapati, Mokshith Reddy Tanguturi, and Sridhar Chimalakonda. 2025. I Can’t Share Code, but I need Translation–An Empirical Study on Code Translation through Federated LLM. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.05724 (2025). ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. ...

    2025 arXiv

  39. [44]

    Xuan Li, Shuai Yuan, Xiaodong Gu, Yuting Chen, and Beijun Shen. 2024. Few-shot code translation via task-adapted prompt learning. Journal of Systems and Software 212 (2024), 112002

    2024

  40. [45]

    Zongjie Li, Chaozheng Wang, Pingchuan Ma, Chaowei Liu, Shuai Wang, Daoyuan Wu, Cuiyun Gao, and Yang Liu

  41. [46]

    Zehao Lin, Guodun Li, Jingfeng Zhang, Yue Deng, Xiangji Zeng, Yin Zhang, and Yao Wan. 2022. Xcode: Towards cross-language code representation with large-scale pre-training. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology (TOSEM) 31, 3 (2022), 1–44

    2022

  42. [47]

    Bingchang Liu, Chaoyu Chen, Zi Gong, Cong Liao, Huan Wang, Zhichao Lei, Ming Liang, Dajun Chen, Min Shen, Hailian Zhou, et al. 2024. Mftcoder: Boosting code llms with multitask fine-tuning. In Proceedings of the 30th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining...

    2024

  43. [48]

    Chao Liu, Xuanlin Bao, Hongyu Zhang, Neng Zhang, Haibo Hu, Xiaohong Zhang, and Meng Yan. 2023. Improving chatgpt prompt for code generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.08360 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  44. [49]

    Fang Liu, Jia Li, and Li Zhang. 2023. Syntax and domain aware model for unsupervised program translation. In 2023 IEEE/ACM 45th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE) . IEEE, 755–767

    2023

  45. [50]

    Junwei Liu, Kaixin Wang, Yixuan Chen, Xin Peng, Zhenpeng Chen, Lingming Zhang, and Yiling Lou. 2024. Large language model-based agents for software engineering: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.02977 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  46. [51]

    Jiaqi Liu, Fengming Zhang, Xin Zhang, Zhiwen Yu, Liang Wang, Yao Zhang, and Bin Guo. 2024. hmCodeTrans: Human-Machine Interactive Code Translation. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering (2024)

    2024

  47. [52]

    Shangqing Liu, Bozhi Wu, Xiaofei Xie, Guozhu Meng, and Yang Liu. 2023. Contrabert: Enhancing code pre-trained models via contrastive learning. In 2023 IEEE/ACM 45th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE) . IEEE, 2476–2487

    2023

  48. [53]

    Yue Liu, Chakkrit Tantithamthavorn, Li Li, and Yepang Liu. 2022. Deep learning for android malware defenses: a systematic literature review. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR) 55, 8 (2022), 1–36

    2022

  49. [54]

    Adam Lopez. 2008. Statistical machine translation. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR) 40, 3 (2008), 1–49

    2008

  50. [55]

    Shuai Lu, Daya Guo, Shuo Ren, Junjie Huang, Alexey Svyatkovskiy, Ambrosio Blanco, Colin Clement, Dawn Drain, Daxin Jiang, Duyu Tang, et al. 2021. Codexglue: A machine learning benchmark dataset for code understanding and generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2102.04664 (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  51. [56]

    Marcos Macedo, Yuan Tian, Pengyu Nie, Filipe R Cogo, and Bram Adams. 2024. InterTrans: Leveraging Transitive Intermediate Translations to Enhance LLM-based Code Translation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.01063 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  52. [58]

    Ahmad A Muhammad, Amira T Mahmoud, Shaymaa S Elkalyouby, Rameez B Hamza, and Ahmed H Yousef. 2020. Trans-Compiler based Mobile Applications code converter: swift to java. In 2020 2nd Novel Intelligent and Leading Emerging Sciences Conference (NILES) . IEEE, 247–252

    2020

  53. [59]

    Anh Tuan Nguyen, Tung Thanh Nguyen, and Tien N Nguyen. 2013. Lexical statistical machine translation for language migration. In Proceedings of the 2013 9th Joint Meeting on Foundations of Software Engineering . 651–654

    2013

  54. [60]

    Anh Tuan Nguyen, Tung Thanh Nguyen, and Tien N Nguyen. 2015. Divide-and-conquer approach for multi-phase statistical migration for source code (t). In 2015 30th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE). IEEE, 585–596

    2015

  55. [61]

    Md Hasanuzzaman Noor and Leonidas Fegaras. 2020. Translation of array-based loops to spark sql. In 2020 IEEE International Conference on Big Data (Big Data) . IEEE, 469–476

    2020

  56. [62]

    Guangsheng Ou, Mingwei Liu, Yuxuan Chen, Xueying Du, Shengbo Wang, Zekai Zhang, Xin Peng, and Zibin Zheng

  57. [63]

    Jialing Pan, Adrien Sadé, Jin Kim, Eric Soriano, Guillem Sole, and Sylvain Flamant. 2023. SteloCoder: a Decoder-Only LLM for Multi-Language to Python Code Translation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.15539 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  58. [64]

    Rangeet Pan, Ali Reza Ibrahimzada, Rahul Krishna, Divya Sankar, Lambert Pouguem Wassi, Michele Merler, Boris Sobolev, Raju Pavuluri, Saurabh Sinha, and Reyhaneh Jabbarvand. 2024. Lost in translation: A study of bugs introduced by large language models while translating code. I...

    2024

  59. [65]

    Kishore Papineni, Salim Roukos, Todd Ward, and Wei-Jing Zhu. 2002. Bleu: a method for automatic evaluation of machine translation. In Proceedings of the 40th annual meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics . 311–318. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol., Vol. 1, No...

    2002

  60. [66]

    Ruchir Puri, David S Kung, Geert Janssen, Wei Zhang, Giacomo Domeniconi, Vladimir Zolotov, Julian Dolby, Jie Chen, Mihir Choudhury, Lindsey Decker, et al. 2021. Codenet: A large-scale ai for code dataset for learning a diversity of coding tasks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2105.12655 (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  61. [67]

    Shuo Ren, Daya Guo, Shuai Lu, Long Zhou, Shujie Liu, Duyu Tang, Neel Sundaresan, Ming Zhou, Ambrosio Blanco, and Shuai Ma. 2020. Codebleu: a method for automatic evaluation of code synthesis. arXiv preprint arXiv:2009.10297 (2020)

    2020 arXiv

  62. [68]

    Baptiste Roziere, Marie-Anne Lachaux, Lowik Chanussot, and Guillaume Lample. 2020. Unsupervised translation of programming languages. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 33 (2020), 20601–20611

    2020

  63. [69]

    Baptiste Roziere, Jie M Zhang, Francois Charton, Mark Harman, Gabriel Synnaeve, and Guillaume Lample. 2021. Leveraging automated unit tests for unsupervised code translation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.06773 (2021)

    2021 arXiv

  64. [70]

    Liangying Shao, Yanfu Yan, Denys Poshyvanyk, and Jinsong Su. 2025. UniGenCoder: Merging Seq2Seq and Seq2Tree Paradigms for Unified Code Generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.12490 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  65. [71]

    Momoko Shiraishi and Takahiro Shinagawa. 2024. Context-aware Code Segmentation for C-to-Rust Translation using Large Language Models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.10506 (2024)

    2024

  66. [72]

    Zhensu Sun, Li Li, Yan Liu, Xiaoning Du, and Li Li. 2022. On the importance of building high-quality training datasets for neural code search. In Proceedings of the 44th International Conference on Software Engineering . 1609–1620

    2022

  67. [73]

    Marc Szafraniec, Baptiste Roziere, Hugh Leather, Francois Charton, Patrick Labatut, and Gabriel Synnaeve. 2022. Code translation with compiler representations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2207.03578 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  68. [75]

    Qingxiao Tao, Tingrui Yu, Xiaodong Gu, and Beijun Shen. 2024. Unraveling the Potential of Large Language Models in Code Translation: How Far Are We? arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.09812 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  69. [76]

    Ali Tehrani, Arijit Bhattacharjee, Le Chen, Nesreen K Ahmed, Amir Yazdanbakhsh, and Ali Jannesari. 2024. CodeRosetta: Pushing the Boundaries of Unsupervised Code Translation for Parallel Programming. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 37 (2024), 100965–100999

    2024

  70. [77]

    Sindhu Tipirneni, Ming Zhu, and Chandan K Reddy. 2024. Structcoder: Structure-aware transformer for code generation. ACM Transactions on Knowledge Discovery from Data 18, 3 (2024), 1–20

    2024

  71. [78]

    Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N Gomez, Łukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. 2017. Attention is all you need. Advances in neural information processing systems 30 (2017)

    2017

  72. [79]

    Bo Wang, Ruishi Li, Mingkai Li, and Prateek Saxena. 2023. Transmap: Pinpointing mistakes in neural code translation. In Proceedings of the 31st ACM Joint European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering. 999–1011

    2023

  73. [80]

    Chaozheng Wang, Yuanhang Yang, Cuiyun Gao, Yun Peng, Hongyu Zhang, and Michael R Lyu. 2022. No more fine-tuning? an experimental evaluation of prompt tuning in code intelligence. In Proceedings of the 30th ACM joint European software engineering conference and symposium on the...

    2022

  74. [81]

    Junjie Wang, Yuchao Huang, Chunyang Chen, Zhe Liu, Song Wang, and Qing Wang. 2024. Software testing with large language models: Survey, landscape, and vision. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering (2024)

    2024

  75. [82]

    Xinchen Wang, Ruida Hu, Cuiyun Gao, Xin-Cheng Wen, Yujia Chen, and Qing Liao. 2024. Reposvul: A repository-level high-quality vulnerability dataset. In Proceedings of the 2024 IEEE/ACM 46th International Conference on Software Engineering: Companion Proceedings. 472–483

    2024

  76. [83]

    Yue Wang, Weishi Wang, Shafiq Joty, and Steven CH Hoi. 2021. CodeT5: Identifier-aware Unified Pre-trained Encoder- Decoder Models for Code Understanding and Generation. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing . 8696–8708

    2021

  77. [84]

    Justin D Weisz, Michael Muller, Steven I Ross, Fernando Martinez, Stephanie Houde, Mayank Agarwal, Kartik Talamadupula, and John T Richards. 2022. Better together? an evaluation of ai-supported code translation. In Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Intelligen...

    2022

  78. [85]

    Jules White, Quchen Fu, Sam Hays, Michael Sandborn, Carlos Olea, Henry Gilbert, Ashraf Elnashar, Jesse Spencer- Smith, and Douglas C Schmidt. 2023. A prompt pattern catalog to enhance prompt engineering with chatgpt. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.11382 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  79. [86]

    Min Xue, Artur Andrzejak, and Marla Leuther. 2024. An interpretable error correction method for enhancing code-to-code translation. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations

    2024

  80. [87]

    Pengyu Xue, Linhao Wu, Zhen Yang, Chengyi Wang, Xiang Li, Yuxiang Zhang, Jia Li, Ruikai Jin, Yifei Pei, Zhaoyan Shen, Xiran Lyu, and Jacky Wai Keung. 2025. ClassEval-T: Evaluating Large Language Models in Class-Level Code Translation. In Proceedings of the 34rd ACM SIGSOFT Int...

    2025

  81. [89]

    Zezhou Yang, Sirong Chen, Cuiyun Gao, Zhenhao Li, Ge Li, and Michael Lyu. 2023. Deep Learning Based Code Generation Methods: Literature Review. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.01056 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  82. [90]

    Zhen Yang, Fang Liu, Zhongxing Yu, Jacky Wai Keung, Jia Li, Shuo Liu, Yifan Hong, Xiaoxue Ma, Zhi Jin, and Ge Li

  83. [91]

    Xin Yin, Chao Ni, Tien N Nguyen, Shaohua Wang, and Xiaohu Yang. 2024. Rectifier: Code translation with corrector via llms. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.07472 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  84. [92]

    Zhiqiang Yuan, Weitong Chen, Hanlin Wang, Kai Yu, Xin Peng, and Yiling Lou. 2024. Transagent: An llm-based multi-agent system for code translation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.19894 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  85. [93]

    Proceedings of the ACM on Software Engineering 1, FSE (2024), 1585–1608

    Exploring and unleashing the power of large language models in automated code translation. Proceedings of the ACM on Software Engineering 1, FSE (2024), 1585–1608

    2024

  86. [94]

    Quanjun Zhang, Chunrong Fang, Yang Xie, YuXiang Ma, Weisong Sun, Yun Yang, and Zhenyu Chen. 2024. A systematic literature review on large language models for automated program repair. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.01466 (2024)

    2024

  87. [95]

    Qinkai Zheng, Xiao Xia, Xu Zou, Yuxiao Dong, Shan Wang, Yufei Xue, Lei Shen, Zihan Wang, Andi Wang, Yang Li, Teng Su, Zhilin Yang, and Jie Tang. 2023. CodeGeeX: A Pre-Trained Model for Code Generation with Multilingual Benchmarking on HumanEval-X. In Proceedings of the 29th AC...

    2023

  88. [96]

    Quanjun Zhang, Chunrong Fang, Yuxiang Ma, Weisong Sun, and Zhenyu Chen. 2023. A survey of learning-based automated program repair. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology (TOSEM) 33, 2 (2023), 1–69

    2023

  89. [97]

    Xin Zhou, Martin Weyssow, Ratnadira Widyasari, Ting Zhang, Junda He, Yunbo Lyu, Jianming Chang, Beiqi Zhang, Dan Huang, and David Lo. 2025. LessLeak-Bench: A First Investigation of Data Leakage in LLMs Across 83 Software Engineering Benchmarks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.06215 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  90. [98]

    Ming Zhu, Mohimenul Karim, Ismini Lourentzou, and Daphne Yao. 2024. Semi-Supervised Code Translation Over- coming the Scarcity of Parallel Code Data. In Proceedings of the 39th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering. 1545–1556

    2024

  91. [99]

    Hao Zhong, Suresh Thummalapenta, Tao Xie, Lu Zhang, and Qing Wang. 2010. Mining API mapping for language migration. In Proceedings of the 32nd ACM/IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering - Volume 1 (ICSE ’10) . Association for Computing Machinery, 195–204

    2010

  92. [100]

    Qihao Zhu, Qingyuan Liang, Zeyu Sun, Yingfei Xiong, Lu Zhang, and Shengyu Cheng. 2024. GrammarT5: Grammar- integrated pretrained encoder-decoder neural model for code. In Proceedings of the IEEE/ACM 46th International Conference on Software Engineering . 1–13

    2024

  93. [101]

    Terry Yue Zhuo, Zhuang Li, Yujin Huang, Fatemeh Shiri, Weiqing Wang, Gholamreza Haffari, and Yuan-Fang Li. 2023. On Robustness of Prompt-based Semantic Parsing with Large Pre-trained Language Model: An Empirical Study on Codex. In Proceedings of the 17th Conference of the Euro...

    2023

  94. [102]

    Ming Zhu, Karthik Suresh, and Chandan K Reddy. 2022. Multilingual code snippets training for program translation. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence , Vol. 36. 11783–11790

    2022

  95. [2024]

    In Proceedings of the IEEE/ACM 46th International Conference on Software Engineering

    On extracting specialized code abilities from large language models: A feasibility study. In Proceedings of the IEEE/ACM 46th International Conference on Software Engineering . 1–13

  96. [2025]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.18305 (2025)

    Enhancing LLM-based Code Translation in Repository Context via Triple Knowledge-Augmented. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.18305 (2025)

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.