Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

Investigating the Performance of Language Models for Completing Code in Functional Programming Languages: a Haskell Case Study

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2403.15185 v1 pith:Y5UPDBS2 submitted 2024-03-22 cs.CL

classification cs.CL
keywords languagesmodelscodefunctionalhaskellprogramminglanguagecompletion
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
read the original abstract

Language model-based code completion models have quickly grown in use, helping thousands of developers write code in many different programming languages. However, research on code completion models typically focuses on imperative languages such as Python and JavaScript, which results in a lack of representation for functional programming languages. Consequently, these models often perform poorly on functional languages such as Haskell. To investigate whether this can be alleviated, we evaluate the performance of two language models for code, CodeGPT and UniXcoder, on the functional programming language Haskell. We fine-tune and evaluate the models on Haskell functions sourced from a publicly accessible Haskell dataset on HuggingFace. Additionally, we manually evaluate the models using our novel translated HumanEval dataset. Our automatic evaluation shows that knowledge of imperative programming languages in the pre-training of LLMs may not transfer well to functional languages, but that code completion on functional languages is feasible. Consequently, this shows the need for more high-quality Haskell datasets. A manual evaluation on HumanEval-Haskell indicates CodeGPT frequently generates empty predictions and extra comments, while UniXcoder more often produces incomplete or incorrect predictions. Finally, we release HumanEval-Haskell, along with the fine-tuned models and all code required to reproduce our experiments on GitHub (https://github.com/AISE-TUDelft/HaskellCCEval).

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Enhancing Code Generation for Low-Resource Languages: No Silver Bullet

    cs.SE 2025-01 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    No single technique boosts LLM code generation for low-resource languages; the best choice depends on model size, with in-context learning typically the safest.

  2. A Systematic Literature Review of Parameter-Efficient Fine-Tuning for Large Code Models

    cs.SE 2025-04 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    This review synthesizes 28 studies to classify PEFT use in software engineering, finding LoRA and adapters dominant and PEFT often competitive with full fine-tuning.

Pith tools