# Which Algorithm Specification Formats Help Language Models Implement Machine Learning Algorithms?

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.03158 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2607.03158/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 7 of its 15 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 3 Jul 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 7 of 7)

- [Program Synthesis with Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2108.07732/) (2021)
- [SWE-bench: Can Language Models Resolve Real-World GitHub Issues?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.06770/) (2023)
- [PaperBench: Evaluating AI's Ability to Replicate AI Research](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.01848/) (2025)
- [Does Prompt Formatting Have Any Impact on LLM Performance?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2411.10541/) (2024)
- [SciReplicate-Bench: Benchmarking LLMs in Agent-driven Algorithmic Reproduction from Research Papers](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.00255/) (2025)
- [ResearchCodeBench: Benchmarking LLMs on Implementing Novel Machine Learning Research Code](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.02314/) (2025)
- [From Articles to Code: On-Demand Generation of Core Algorithms from Scientific Publications](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.22324/) (2025)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to implement algorithms from research manuscripts, but papers often leave implementation choices implicit. This study examines how the written format of an algorithm specification affects first-pass LLM implementation accuracy. We compare ordinary prose, LaTeX algorithm-style pseudocode, PDF-like extracted pseudocode, Markdown fields, YAML-like specifications, JSON-like specifications, and Python code stubs across five machine learning tasks, three models, and four experimental settings, yielding 4,020 generated implementations. Hidden tests evaluate details that often determine correctness, including tie-breaking, array shapes, numerical rules, return structures, and invalid-input behavior. Under the core-information setting, LaTeX algorithm-style pseudocode has the largest average format effect, with YAML-like specifications and ordinary prose close behind. Under complete information, GPT-5.4 mini shows no format differences in the matched comparisons, whereas Gemma 3 4B and Llama 3.2 3B still do. Code stubs do not consistently improve correctness despite specifying the function signature. The results support a writing recommendation: authors should state the interface, computation steps, numerical rules, and boundary-case behavior explicitly, instead of relying on a particular surface format to carry those details.