Large language models (LLMs) achieve high pass rates on code generation benchmarks, yet whether they can transfer this ability to languages absent from pretraining remains poorly understood. We introduce PyLang, a minimal imperative language absent from all pretraining corpora, and evaluate frontier models zero-shot and fine-tuned Qwen3 (4B, 8B, 32B) on 352 problems. We find that fine-tuning quickly teaches syntax but fails to transfer semantic competence: Python outperforms PyLang by up to 19% across all configurations, and no intervention (multi-task learning, preference tuning, code infilling, or latent-space objectives) closes the gap. An LLM judge reveals that frontier models select an identical algorithm to Python 80% of the time, yet cannot translate it into a working PyLang implementation., and CKA analysis confirms that fine-tuned models converge to nearly identical internal representations across languages (CKA > 0.97) while diverging at the output stage. We term this the implementation fidelity gap: models possess language-agnostic algorithmic understanding but cannot express it in an unfamiliar language. Our findings highlight the need for training methods that decouple reasoning from language-specific realization.
Large Language Models achieve strong code generation for high resource languages like Python and Java but suffer sharp performance drops on Low-Resource Programming Languages~(LRPLs) such as Julia. Improving Small Language Models~(SLMs) for these languages faces a trilemma: Supervised Fine-Tuning~(SFT) is bottlenecked by data scarcity, inference-time scaling is too expensive for deployment, and Reinforcement Learning from scratch yields near zero advantages. We propose a three-phase pipeline that resolves this trilemma by decoupling syntax acquisition from algorithmic reasoning. First, we \emph{left-shift} inference-time compute to an offline data synthesis engine that uses iterative compiler and test feedback to generate verified training examples. Second, we fine-tune an SLM on this synthetic, verified data to embed strong syntactic priors. Third, we apply Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Reward~(RLVR) grounded by language-agnostic Input/Output tests, where the SFT prior constrains exploration away from syntax errors. Applied to Qwen3-8B, our pipeline improves pass@1 by up to +7.6 points on MultiPL-E and +14.2 points on the Agnostics LiveCodeBench for Julia compared to SOTA results. Furthermore, the pipeline only used 31 data and 61 cost over the previous state-of-the-art. We further demonstrate that the pipeline generalizes to Ballerina achieving 49.7% MultiPL-E Pass@1, a language with near-zero pretraining representation. Ablations confirm that both the SFT phase and execution-grounded rewards are necessary for stable training.
Large language models (LLMs) have been shown to exhibit strong Python preferences when generating project-level code, but there is currently no systematic way to measure this behaviour across new models. To bridge this gap, we introduce LangChoiceBench, a project-level code-generation benchmark for measuring Python preference, recommendation-implementation consistency, and language diversity. LangChoiceBench covers 28 projects across seven software areas where Python is often a poor default. We evaluate 25 diverse LLMs and find that Python remains heavily over-selected, recommendation-implementation consistency is low, and smaller open-weight models generally show stronger Python preference and lower language diversity. We further analyse 9,826 reasoning traces and find that most Python choices are automatic or driven primarily by ease, rather than explicit consideration of project requirements. In a smaller but important set of cases, models fabricate contextual support for choosing Python - a failure mode we call phantom evidence - or produce code that contradicts the language selected in their own reasoning.
Code language models are now trusted collaborators in production workflows for debugging, refactoring, and iterative repair, and every benchmark that evaluates them assumes the instructions they act on are correct. We study what happens when that assumption breaks. We evaluate code language models across four experiments designed to assess whether models resist or obey incorrect instructions in single-pass and iterative repair settings, using the RunBugRun dataset of algorithmic Python problems with deterministic test cases. Our findings reveal a striking behavioral pattern: models correctly identify an incorrect instruction as wrong, then follow it anyway. This compliance unknowingly introduces errors beyond the original bug, and the corrupted code state cannot be recovered through subsequent self-guided iterative repair, which fails to converge across passes. We term this Blind Obedience, characterize the Ghost (Unknown) Errors it introduces, quantify the proportion of cases where semantic corruption proves irrecoverable, and show that extended reasoning cannot reverse it. These findings surface behavioral properties invisible to pass-rate evaluation, with direct consequences for code language models deployed in production settings.