arXiv Machine Learning By Indraneil Paul, Goran Glava\v{s}, Iryna Gurevych

Themis: Training Robust Multilingual Code Reward Models for Flexible Multi-Criteria Scoring

Read the original on arXiv Machine Learning →

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.

Machine-generated by The Flow from the publisher's headline and feed description — not written or checked by a human. The full article lives at arXiv Machine Learning.

arXiv AI
Jul 17

Large Language Models for Code Generation from Multilingual Prompts: A Curated Benchmark and a Study on Code Quality

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
Hugging Face Trending Papers
Jul 16

Large Language Models for Code Generation from Multilingual Prompts: A Curated Benchmark and a Study on Code Quality

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 Computation and Language
Aug 27

Lower-Resource, Higher Scores: Language Bias in LLM Evaluators

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.

By Ej Zhou, Lucas Resck, Zheng Hui, Anna Korhonen