Jul 2026· Software Language Engineering· pp. 64-77· 0 citations· 8 references
Computer Science
TL;DR
This paper introduces a systematic framework to identify and quantify the syntactic knowledge exhibited by an LLM with respect to a given programming language, and defines syntactic coverage as a set of measurable indicators of how comprehensively language constructs are represented in datasets and generated code.
Abstract
Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used for code generation, yet their support for programming languages is uneven, particularly for low-resource languages and infrequently used language constructs. Existing evaluation methodologies primarily assess functional correctness through test execution, which fails to reveal blind spots in a model's knowledge of a target language. In this paper, we introduce a systematic framework to identify and quantify the syntactic knowledge exhibited by an LLM with respect to a given programming language. We define syntactic coverage as a set of measurable indicators of how comprehensively language constructs are represented in datasets and generated code. Our approach analyzes code snippets against grammatical rules and structural features to compute interpretable coverage metrics, detect underrepresented constructs, and expose gaps in language support. The proposed framework supports comparative analysis across datasets, languages, and models through an automated pipeline that produces actionable diagnostic reports. Our experimental results demonstrate that syntactic coverage analysis reveals substantial differences in language support that are not captured by functional correctness alone, enabling more informed model selection, benchmark design, and dataset improvement strategies.
This work investigates whether LLMs can accurately judge functional equivalence across different programming languages in human-written code, a setting that requires deeper reasoning beyond superficial similarity, and identifies a difficulty-dependent breakdown in equivalence judgment.
Hui Sun, Anderson G. Uchôa, Rohit Gheyi et al.· 2 citations
It is observed that generated code often omits basic input validation or memory-safety checks, which can lead to overflows, resource exhaustion, or other reliability/security issues, and even the largest models frequently make simple mistakes.
Rodrigo Pato Nogueira, Marco Vieira, João R. Campos· 0 citations
LangChoiceBench is introduced, a project-level code-generation benchmark for measuring Python preference, recommendation-implementation consistency, and language diversity, and it is found that Python remains heavily over-selected, recommendation-implementation consistency is low, and smaller open-weight models general...
Lukas Twist, Twm Stone, Helen Yannakoudakis et al.· 0 citations
The results show that English prompts do not consistently produce the best functional correctness or code quality, the impact of prompt language depends on both the programming language and the LLM, and generated code frequently mixes English with the prompt language in comments and string literals.
Saima Afrin, Alessandro Midolo, C. Escobar-Velasquez et al.· arXiv.org· 0 citations
The findings show that, while LLMs achieve promising results, they struggle with harder problems and with programming languages that have fewer available resources for training, and they often fail due to fundamental and easily avoidable errors that underscore the unreliability of automatically generated code.
Rodrigo Pato Nogueira, Marco Vieira, João R. Campos· Empirical Software Engineeri...· 1 citation
Two novel contributions are introduced: CodeEval and CodeQual, an open-source execution framework that provides researchers with a ready-to-use evaluation pipeline for evaluating and improving LLMs in software engineering contexts, encompassing both functional correctness assessment and subjective code quality evaluati...
Danny Brahman· 0 citations
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.