The paper investigates whether code large language models (CodeLLMs) inadvertently reproduce proprietary or sensitive code by evaluating seven state‑of‑the‑art training data detection (TDD) methods on eight CodeLLMs. It introduces CodeSnitch, a benchmark of 9,000 function‑level code samples across three languages, each labeled as included or excluded from training data, and applies mutation strategies based on the Type‑1 to Type‑4 code clone taxonomy to test TDD robustness. The study offers a systematic assessment of current TDD techniques for code and suggests directions for developing more effective detection methods.
By Tianlin Li, Yunxiang Wei, Zhiming Li, Aishan Liu, Qing Guo, Xianglong Liu, Dongning Sun, Yang Liu
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.
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.
By Saima Afrin, Alessandro Midolo, Camilo Escobar-Vel\'asquez, Mario Linares-V\'asquez, Weiyuan Ding, Bowen Xu, Massimiliano Di Penta, Antonio Mastropaolo
arXiv:2609.26388v1 Announce Type: cross
Abstract: Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) have made them widely used for code-related tasks. Identifier names are statistically informative in...
By Xin Shen (Nanjing University, Nanjing, China), San-Zhuo Xi (Nanjing University, Nanjing, China), Yali Du (Nanjing University, Nanjing, China), Ming Li (Nanjing University, Nanjing, China)
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.
By Lara Marinov, Aditya Thimmaiah, Jayanth Srinivasa, Junyi Jessy Li, Milos Gligoric
The paper introduces CETBench, a benchmark for assessing large language models (LLMs) on code-equivalence checking by generating program pairs through random code transformations. It demonstrates that even simple transformations significantly degrade LLM performance, especially in cross-lingual scenarios, and proposes a fine-tuning approach to improve results. The study provides detailed ablations on program difficulty and transformation types, offering insights into LLMs’ limited semantic understanding of code.
By Neeva Oza, Ishaan Govil, Parul Gupta, Dinesh Khandelwal, Dinesh Garg, Parag Singla
arXiv:2607. 01235v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Understanding how Large Language Models (LLMs) make token-level decisions during code generation remains a major challenge for both researchers and practitioners.
By Amirreza Esmaeili, Fatemeh Fard
arXiv:2601. 19072v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large Language models (LLMs) have shown strong capabilities in code review automation, such as review comment generation, yet they suffer from hallucinations -- where the generated review comments are ungrounded in the actual code -- poses a significant challenge to the adoption of LLMs in code review workflows.
By Kla Tantithamthavorn, Hong Yi Lin, Patanamon Thongtanunam, Wachiraphan Charoenwet, Minwoo Jeong, Ming Wu
arXiv:2506. 02791v4 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: In recent years, code intelligence has gained increasing importance in the field of automated software engineering.
By Zhen Yang, Hongyi Lin, Yifan He, Junqi Wang, Zeyu Sun, Shuo Liu, Jie Xu, Pengpeng Wang, Zhongxing Yu, Qingyuan Liang
BabelCoder is an agentic framework for automatic code translation that splits the task into specialized agents for translation, testing, and refinement. Each agent focuses on a specific aspect—generating code, validating correctness, or repairing errors—allowing collaborative improvement of translation quality. Evaluated on four benchmark datasets, BabelCoder outperforms four state‑of‑the‑art baselines, achieving an average accuracy of 94.16% and surpassing existing methods in 94% of cases.
By Fazle Rabbi, Soumit Kanti Saha, Tri Minh Triet Pham, Song Wang, Jinqiu Yang
arXiv:2603. 14501v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large Language Models excel in high-resource programming languages but struggle with low-resource ones.
By Junhang Cheng, Fang Liu, Jia Li, Chengru Wu, Nanxiang Jiang, Li Zhang
arXiv:2604. 07341v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Most repository-level code translation and validation techniques have been evaluated on a single source-target programming language (PL) pair, owing to the complex engineering effort required to adapt new PL pairs.
By Ali Reza Ibrahimzada, Brandon Paulsen, Daniel Kroening, Reyhaneh Jabbarvand