Papers › mHumanEval -- A Multilingual Benchmark to Evaluate Large Language Models for Code Generation

mHumanEval -- A Multilingual Benchmark to Evaluate Large Language Models for Code Generation

19 Oct 2024arXiv:2410.15037archive 2025-07-28

Nishat Raihan, Antonios Anastasopoulos, Marcos Zampieri

Recent advancements in large language models (LLMs) have significantly enhanced code generation from natural language prompts. The HumanEval Benchmark, developed by OpenAI, remains the most widely used code generation benchmark. However, this and other Code LLM benchmarks face critical limitations, particularly in task diversity, test coverage, and linguistic scope. Current evaluations primarily focus on English-to-Python conversion tasks with limited test cases, potentially overestimating model performance. While recent works have addressed test coverage and programming language (PL) diversity, code generation from low-resource language prompts remains largely unexplored. To address this gap, we introduce mHumanEval, an extended benchmark supporting prompts in over 200 natural languages. We employ established machine translation methods to compile the benchmark, coupled with a quality assurance process. Furthermore, we provide expert human translations for 15 diverse natural languages (NLs). We conclude by analyzing the multilingual code generation capabilities of state-of-the-art (SOTA) Code LLMs, offering insights into the current landscape of cross-lingual code generation.

PaperPDFCode

Code

mraihan-gmu/mHumanEval-Benchmark officialmentioned on GitHubApache-2.0 report

Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.

Code Syntology ran Syntology

Not run by Syntology. Nothing on this page verifies that the listed code works.

Tasks

Code GenerationDiversityHumanEvalMachine Translation

Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28

No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.

Methods

Focus

Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections