Francesca Lucchetti, Zixuan Wu, Arjun Guha, Molly Q Feldman, Carolyn Jane Anderson. Proceedings of the 2025 Conference of the Nations of the Americas Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (Volume 1: Long Papers). 2025.

Generative AI models, specifically large language models (LLMs), have made strides towards the long-standing goal of text-to-code generation. This progress has invited numerous studies of user interaction. However, less is known about the struggles and strategies of non-experts, for whom each step of the text-to-code problem presents challenges: describing their intent in natural language, evaluating the correctness of generated code, and editing prompts when the generated code is incorrect. This paper presents a large-scale controlled study of how 120 beginning coders across three academic institutions approach writing and editing prompts. A novel experimental design allows us to target specific steps in the text-to-code process and reveals that beginners struggle with writing and editing prompts, even for problems at their skill level and when correctness is automatically determined. Our mixed-methods evaluation provides insight into student processes and perceptions with key implications for non-expert Code LLM use within and outside of education.

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, the quality of code produced by a Code LLM varies significantly by programming language. Code LLMs produce impressive results on high-resource 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 (e.g., 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, called M ulti PL-T, generates high-quality datasets for low-resource languages, which can then be used to fine-tune any pretrained Code LLM. M ulti PL-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 unit tests for commented code from a high-resource source language, filtering out faulty tests and code with low test coverage. 2) We use a Code LLM to translate the code from the high-resource source language to a target low-resource language. This gives us a corpus of candidate training data in the target language, but many of these translations are wrong. 3) We use a lightweight compiler to compile the test cases generated in (1) from the source language to the target language, which allows us to filter our obviously wrong translations. The result is a training corpus in the target low-resource language where all items have been validated with test cases. We apply this approach to generate tens of thousands of new, validated training items for five low-resource languages: Julia, Lua, OCaml, R, and Racket, using Python as the source high-resource language. Furthermore, we use an open Code LLM (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. Using datasets generated with M ulti PL-T, we present fine-tuned versions of StarCoderBase and Code Llama for Julia, Lua, OCaml, R, and Racket that outperform other fine-tunes of these base models on the natural language to code task. We also present Racket fine-tunes for two very recent models, DeepSeek Coder and StarCoder2, to show that M ulti PL-T continues to outperform other fine-tuning approaches for low-resource languages. The M ulti PL-T approach is easy to apply to new languages, and is significantly more efficient and effective than alternatives such as training longer.

Large language models have demonstrated the ability to generate both natural language and programming language text. Although contemporary code generation models are trained on corpora with several programming languages, they are tested using benchmarks that are typically monolingual. The most widely used code generation benchmarks only target Python, so there is little quantitative evidence of how code generation models perform on other programming 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 [1] and MBPP benchmark [2] 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 [1], CodeGen [3]and InCoder [4]. 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.

Writing is a common task for crowdsourcing researchers exploring complex and creative work. To better understand how we write with crowds, we conducted both a literature review of crowd-writing systems and structured interviews with designers of such systems. We argue that the cognitive process theory of writing described by Flower and Hayes (1981), originally proposed as a theory of how solo writers write, offers a useful analytic lens for examining the design of crowd-writing systems. This lens enabled us to identify system design challenges that are inherent to the process of writing as well as design challenges that are introduced by crowdsourcing. The findings present both similarities and differences between how solo writers write versus how we write with crowds. To conclude, we discuss how the research community might apply and transcend the cognitive process model to identify opportunities for future research in crowd-writing systems.

K-8 mathematics students must learn many procedures, such as addition and subtraction. Students frequently learn "buggy' variations of these procedures, which we ideally could identify automatically. This is challenging because there are many possible variations that reflect deep compositions of procedural thought. Existing approaches for K-8 math use manually specified variations which do not scale to new math algorithms or previously unseen misconceptions. Our system examines students' answers and infers how they incorrectly combine basic skills into complex procedures. We evaluate this approach on data from approximately 300 students. Our system replicates 86% of the answers that contain clear systematic mistakes (13%). Investigating further, we found 77% at least partially replicate a known misconception, with 53% matching exactly. We also present data from 29 participants showing that our system can demonstrate inferred incorrect procedures to an educator as successfully as a human expert.