Large language models benefit from elements in natural language, such as metaphors and analogies in training data and inference input to achieve generalisability across different domains. However, these language elements may also lead to unwanted behaviors when metaphorical expressions implicitly transfer inappropriate procedural patterns into new tasks. In this paper, we show that metaphorical instructions can induce analogical transfer of procedural mechanisms, thus steering code-generation models towards less efficient algorithms. We refer to this metaphor-induced effect as metaphorical algorithmic steering: a skill that is benign and plausible within its source domain transfers an abstract procedural schema into a programming task, causing the model to favor exhaustive search, full scans, or repeated reconstruction without explicitly mentioning the target algorithm. More broadly, this suggests that code-generation models can carry procedures that are appropriate in a task's background domain into the task's programming problem, where they can lead to unwanted outcomes. To study this phenomenon, we develop MASC (Metaphorical Algorithmic Steering for Code Generation), a framework that iteratively metaphorizes and refines benign skills to elicit low-efficiency code while remaining benign and task-relevant. Beyond behavioral evaluation, we study whether this phenomenon is detectable and mechanistically reflected in model representations. Our method achieves high detection rates for metaphorical skills and less-efficient implementations. We also find that metaphorical skills induce a hidden-state shift towards lower-efficiency procedural behavior prototypes. These results suggest that metaphorical algorithmic steering operates through the transfer of procedural patterns associated with metaphorical source scenarios rather than surface level metaphorical language alone.
Large language models (LLMs) now generate substantial production code, often for tasks with multiple valid algorithmic solutions. Incidental prompt cues, meaning contextual words or metadata outside the task specification, can steer which algorithm the model selects, even when all outputs pass the same tests. Prompt sensitivity is well studied as a tool to improve output quality. Here, output policy means algorithm choice under fixed correctness. We define algorithm steering as cue-induced shifts in algorithm-family distributions and run 46,535 controlled experiments across 11 tasks, 19 cue types (18 channels plus a memoization semantic-vs-surface ablation that preserves meaning while changing typography and punctuation), and 15 model configurations. We find large, systematic shifts in algorithm-family distributions (up to 100 pp), largely consistent with cue semantics, including in applied tasks such as rate limiting. Direct algorithm naming is the most reliable mitigation we tested. Accidental context therefore creates an "invisible lottery" over performance, security, and maintainability.
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 (LLMs) often generate natural-language comments while writing code, and these comments become part of the context used to generate the code that follows. However, it remains unclear which properties of comments affect code-generation performance. We study this question through observational analyses and controlled interventions. On LiveCodeBench, neither comment frequency nor broad comment intent reliably predicts pass@1. We then prefill weaker recipient models with comment blocks written by stronger source models, allowing us to separate comment surface form from the solution content they convey. Comments from source solutions that pass the tests raise recipient pass@1 by 17.2% on average. In contrast, comments describing failed solutions provide no reliable gain, while comments written for a different problem reduce pass@1 by 20.8%. Finally, across a wide range of models and prompt variants, most recipient models show no significant recovery of the external-comment gain, and the best case recovers only 24%. These results show that comments help code generation not merely because they are comments, but because they can provide correct solution content that prompting cannot reliably elicit.