Mix-of-Language-Experts Architecture for Multilingual Programming
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive capabilities in aiding developers with tasks like code comprehension, generation, and translation. Supporting multilingual programming—i.e., coding tasks across multiple programming languages—typically requires either (1) finetuning a single LLM across all programming languages, which is cost-efficient but sacrifices language-specific specialization and performance, or (2) finetuning separate LLMs for each programming language, which allows for specialization but is computationally expensive and storage-intensive due to the duplication of parameters.This paper introduces MOLE (Mix-of-Language-Experts), a novel architecture that balances efficiency and specialization for multilingual programming. MOLE is composed of a base model, a shared LoRA (low-rank adaptation) module, and a collection of language-specific LoRA modules. These modules are jointly optimized during the finetuning process, enabling effective knowledge sharing and specialization across programming languages. During inference, MOLE automatically routes to the language-specific LoRA module corresponding to the programming language of the code token being generated. Our experiments demonstrate that MOLE achieves greater parameter efficiency compared to training separate language-specific LoRAs, while outperforming a single shared LLM finetuned for all programming languages in terms of accuracy.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".