Molly Q Feldman

Federico Cassano, John Gouwar, Daniel Nguyen et al.

Large language models have demonstrated the ability to generate both natural language and programming language text. Such models open up the possibility of multi-language code generation: could code generation models generalize knowledge from one language to another? Although contemporary code generation models can generate semantically correct Python code, little is known about their abilities with other languages. We propose MultiPL-E, a system for translating unit test-driven code generation benchmarks to new languages. We create the first massively multilingual code generation benchmark by using MultiPL-E to translate two popular Python code generation benchmarks to 18 additional programming languages. We use MultiPL-E to extend the HumanEval benchmark and MBPP benchmark to 18 languages that encompass a range of programming paradigms and popularity. Using these new parallel benchmarks, we evaluate the multi-language performance of three state-of-the-art code generation models: Codex, CodeGen, and InCoder. We find that Codex matches or even exceeds its performance on Python for several other languages. The range of programming languages represented in MultiPL-E allow us to explore the impact of language frequency and language features on model performance. Finally, the MultiPL-E approach of compiling code generation benchmarks to new programming languages is both scalable and extensible, making it straightforward to evaluate new models, benchmarks, and languages.

Federico Cassano, John Gouwar, Francesca Lucchetti et al.

Over the past few years, Large Language Models of Code (Code LLMs) have started to have a significant impact on programming practice. Code LLMs are also emerging as building blocks for research in programming languages and software engineering. However, Code LLMs produce impressive results on programming languages that are well represented in their training data (e.g., Java, Python, or JavaScript), but struggle with low-resource languages that have limited training data available. Low resource languages include OCaml, Racket, and several others. This paper presents an effective approach for boosting the performance of Code LLMs on low-resource languages using semi-synthetic data. Our approach, MultiPL-T, translates training data from high-resource languages into training data for low-resource languages in the following way. 1) We use a Code LLM to synthesize tests for commented code from a high-resource language, filtering out faulty tests and code with low test coverage. 2) We use a Code LLM to translate Python code to a target low-resource language, and use tests to validate the translation. We apply this approach to generate tens of thousands of validated training items for Julia, Lua, OCaml, R, and Racket. Furthermore, we use an open model (StarCoderBase) with open training data (The Stack), which allows us to decontaminate benchmarks, train models without violating licenses, and run experiments that could not otherwise be done. With MultiPL-T generated data, we present fine-tuned versions of StarCoderBase and Code Llama for Julia, Lua, OCaml, R, and Racket. On established benchmarks (MultiPL-E), these models outperform other open Code LLMs. The MultiPL-T approach is easy to apply to new languages, and is significantly more efficient and effective than alternatives such as training longer.

Hannah McLean Babe, Sydney Nguyen, Yangtian Zi et al.

Code LLMs are being rapidly deployed and there is evidence that they can make professional programmers more productive. Current benchmarks for code generation measure whether models generate correct programs given an expert prompt. In this paper, we present a new benchmark containing multiple prompts per problem, written by a specific population of non-expert prompters: beginning programmers. StudentEval contains 1,749 prompts for 48 problems, written by 80 students who have only completed one semester of Python programming. Our students wrote these prompts while working interactively with a Code LLM, and we observed very mixed success rates. We use StudentEval to evaluate 5 Code LLMs and find that StudentEval is a better discriminator of model performance than existing benchmarks. We analyze the prompts and find significant variation in students' prompting techniques. We also find that nondeterministic LLM sampling could mislead students into thinking that their prompts are more (or less) effective than they actually are, which has implications for how to teach with Code LLMs.

Zixuan Wu, Francesca Lucchetti, Aleksander Boruch-Gruszecki et al.

Existing benchmarks for frontier models often test specialized, "PhD-level" knowledge that is difficult for non-experts to grasp. In contrast, we present a benchmark with 594 problems based on the NPR Sunday Puzzle Challenge that requires only general knowledge. Our benchmark is challenging for both humans and models; however correct solutions are easy to verify, and models' mistakes are easy to spot. As LLMs are more widely deployed in society, we believe it is useful to develop benchmarks for frontier models that humans can understand without the need for deep domain expertise. Our work reveals capability gaps that are not evident in existing benchmarks: OpenAI o1 significantly outperforms other reasoning models on our benchmark, despite being on par with other models when tested on benchmarks that test specialized knowledge. Furthermore, our analysis of reasoning outputs uncovers new kinds of failures. DeepSeek R1, for instance, often concedes with "I give up" before providing an answer that it knows is wrong. R1 can also be remarkably "uncertain" in its output and in rare cases, it does not "finish thinking," which suggests the need for techniques to "wrap up" before the context window limit is reached. We also quantify the effectiveness of reasoning longer to identify the point beyond which more reasoning is unlikely to improve accuracy on our benchmark.

Francesca Lucchetti, Zixuan Wu, Arjun Guha et al.

Although LLMs are increasing the productivity of professional programmers, existing work shows that beginners struggle to prompt LLMs to solve text-to-code tasks. Why is this the case? This paper explores two competing hypotheses about the cause of student-LLM miscommunication: (1) students simply lack the technical vocabulary needed to write good prompts, and (2) students do not understand the extent of information that LLMs need to solve code generation tasks. We study (1) with a causal intervention experiment on technical vocabulary and (2) by analyzing graphs that abstract how students edit prompts and the different failures that they encounter. We find that substance beats style: a poor grasp of technical vocabulary is merely correlated with prompt failure; that the information content of prompts predicts success; that students get stuck making trivial edits; and more. Our findings have implications for the use of LLMs in programming education, and for efforts to make computing more accessible with LLMs.