A Preliminary Study of Multilingual Code Language Models for Code Generation Task Using Translated Benchmarks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Evaluating the performance of Code Language Models (CLMs) for software engineering tasks, especially in multilingual and low-resource programming language settings, poses significant challenges. These challenges are primarily due to the lack of high-quality benchmarks across various programming languages and the imbalanced nature of the CLMs training corpus. Although recent advances in one of the common downstream tasks, code generation, have shown promise by introducing translated benchmarks using different methodologies, there is a current lack of empirical evidence assessing these benchmarks. To address this gap, we conducted a preliminary study to evaluate the performance of Poly-Coder, a pioneering open-source, multilingual CLM built for code generation. We utilized two existing state-of-the-art translations of the popular code generation benchmark, HumanEval, facilitated by the OctoPack and MultiPL-E studies. Our results suggest that the outcomes observed in these translated benchmarks align well with evaluation metrics used during the training phase, such as perplexity, thereby validating their effectiveness in estimating the performance of CLMs. However, we identified several inconsistencies in the CLMs' performance across the translated benchmarks and encountered challenges in replicating the results. These initial insights highlight the need for more comprehensive empirical studies to fully understand translated benchmarks' methodological approaches, limitations, and reproducibility. Such studies are essential to ensure their reliability before they are widely adopted.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.059 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".