The paper introduces the first reproducible taxonomy for programming languages based on resource availability, categorizing 646 languages into four tiers. It finds that a small fraction (1.9%) of high-resource languages (Tier 3) generate the majority (74.6%) of tokens in major corpora, while the majority of languages (71.7%) are scarce and contribute only 1.0% of tokens. Statistical analysis confirms the extreme and systematic imbalance across tiers.
arXiv:2603. 14501v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large Language Models excel in high-resource programming languages but struggle with low-resource ones.
arXiv:2606. 08840v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Code generation models are typically compared using compact execution benchmarks and aggregate pass rates, but such summaries obscure how performance varies across programming languages, problem families, and failure modes.
arXiv:2605. 00754v4 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Reward models (RMs) have become an indispensable fixture of the language model (LM) post-training playbook, enabling policy alignment and test-time scaling.
The paper investigates the energy costs of multilingual large language model (LLM) inference, revealing significant disparities across languages. Using the ML.Energy framework, the authors find that energy consumption per output token can differ by up to 8.3×, and total energy for a fixed request set can vary up to 179×, with English being the cheapest and Pashto the most expensive. The study attributes these differences to higher per-token costs for complex or rare scripts and longer outputs for low‑resource languages, and notes that high‑energy languages also tend to have lower task accuracy.
arXiv:2608. 15964v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Language-specific competency (LSC) is the phenomenon of a language model performing better or worse depending on the language of the prompt.
arXiv:2508. 16131v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Code completion entails the task of providing missing tokens given a surrounding context.
arXiv:2607. 14816v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) perform differently on identical programming tasks when prompted in different natural languages, a phenomenon known as language bias.
arXiv:2606. 30790v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Romanized Code Mixing (RCM), where bilingual speakers fluidly blend local languages with English in Roman script, has emerged as the dominant form of communication across multilingual communities.
The paper introduces Program Executability Prediction (PrEx), a task that asks large language models (LLMs) to determine whether a program is semantically valid or invalid and, if invalid, to identify the violated formal rule. To evaluate this, the authors create a dataset of systematically generated invalid programs derived from valid ones and test open‑source coding LLMs across different semantic formalisms, semantic shifts, and program splits (human‑written, LLM‑translated, fuzzer‑generated). Results show that LLMs rely more on pre‑training priors than on the provided semantics, performing poorly on modified semantics and with increasing program complexity.
arXiv:2607.00890v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Open web-scale pre-training corpora remain concentrated in English, limiting multilingual LLM development. We introduce MultiSynt/MT, an open synth...
arXiv:2607. 28008v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Representation engineering reads and steers capability directions in large language models, yet methods are typically evaluated on paper-specific synthetic data.
Large Language Models (LLMs) perform differently on identical programming tasks when prompted in different natural languages, a phenomenon known as language bias. While this behavior has been widely studied for general text generation, its impact on code generation quality and programming conventions remains largely unexplored.