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.
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.
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:2606. 28998v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large Language Model (LLM) alignment trains an LLM using preference data to produce outputs that better meet established quality standards.
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.
The paper demonstrates that large language model (LLM) evaluators, whether reward‑model based or prompted LLM‑as‑a‑Judge, exhibit significant language bias in multilingual settings. Experiments with semantically identical instruction‑response pairs across 23 languages reveal that lower‑resource languages receive higher scores, a bias that persists across eight open‑weight evaluators and is not detectable by standard pairwise accuracy metrics. The authors link the bias to model uncertainty and language identity, showing it cannot be explained by content difficulty alone.
arXiv:2503. 09020v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) have been widely adopted in commercial code completion engines, significantly enhancing coding efficiency and productivity.
arXiv:2506. 11066v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Code retrieval is essential in modern software development, as it boosts code reuse and accelerates debugging.
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:2607. 25675v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Text-space optimization adapts large language models (LLMs) by editing external natural-language artifacts rather than model weights, so the optimized artifacts remain inspectable and the model can be treated as a black box.
arXiv:2609.22097v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: The evaluation of large language models (LLMs) on coding tasks has primarily focused on performance metrics such as pass@k. As LLMs continue to advan...
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.
The paper introduces PolyHuman, a dataset of human-written programs in C++, Java, and Python, to test whether large language models can judge functional equivalence across languages. Using this dataset, the authors evaluate several open-weight and proprietary LLMs, finding that models struggle more with harder problems, show language-specific biases, and rely partly on superficial similarity cues. They also observe run‑to‑run instability in GPT‑o4‑mini, concluding that current LLMs do not reliably capture functional equivalence within or across programming languages.