**

Natural Language Programming: Evolution, Techniques, Applications, and Future Directions#

1. Introduction: Defining Natural Language Programming#

Natural Language Programming (NLPg) represents an emerging paradigm aiming to bridge the gap between human language and computer execution. Its core objective is to enable users, including those with limited or no formal programming expertise, to instruct computers or generate code using natural language, such as English.1 This involves translating potentially ambiguous, high-level natural language descriptions into precise, executable instructions or code.2 The ultimate goal is to make programming more intuitive, accessible, and aligned with human thought processes, thereby potentially democratizing software creation and task automation.1

It is crucial to distinguish Natural Language Programming (NLPg) from the broader field of Natural Language Processing (NLP). NLP is a subfield of artificial intelligence focused on enabling computers to process, understand, and generate human language data.7 NLP encompasses a wide range of tasks like text analysis, speech recognition, machine translation, sentiment analysis, and information retrieval.7 Natural Language Generation (NLG), a subfield of NLP, specifically deals with automatically producing text from structured data or computational representations.8

Natural Language Programming, while heavily reliant on NLP and NLG techniques, has a more specific goal: the generation of executable code or commands from natural language specifications.2 NLP provides the tools to understand the language input (e.g., parsing, intent recognition), while NLPg applies these tools with the specific objective of producing functional programs or controlling system behavior.4 Essentially, NLP is concerned with language understanding and generation in general, whereas NLPg focuses on using language as a direct medium for programming computers.14 This shift represents a move from merely processing language to actively programming with it.14

The motivation behind NLPg stems from the inherent limitations of traditional programming languages, which often require mastering complex syntax, abstract thinking, and formal logic, creating high entry barriers for many potential users.2 By allowing instructions in a more natural form, NLPg aims to lower these barriers, potentially freeing human expressiveness and making computational power accessible to a broader audience.2

2. Historical Evolution of Natural Language Programming#

The ambition to communicate with computers using natural language is nearly as old as computing itself, though the term “Natural Language Programming” and its modern realization are more recent phenomena, heavily influenced by advancements in AI and NLP.

2.1. Early Concepts and Precursors (1950s-1970s):

The journey towards NLPg began alongside the evolution of programming languages and early AI research. The initial machine code and assembly languages of the 1940s and 1950s were highly structured and far removed from natural expression.5 The development of high-level languages like FORTRAN, COBOL, LISP, and Algol in the late 1950s and 1960s represented a significant step towards more human-readable syntax, abstracting away machine-level details.5

Simultaneously, early AI research explored natural language interaction. LISP, developed in the late 1950s, became a dominant language for AI due to its symbolic reasoning capabilities.17 Seminal NLP systems emerged in the 1960s, such as SHRDLU, which operated in a restricted “blocks world” using a limited vocabulary, and ELIZA, a program simulating a psychotherapist that could mimic human-like conversation using pattern matching and simple rules.7 While not generating code, these systems demonstrated the potential for computers to understand and respond to natural language input within specific contexts. ELIZA, developed by Joseph Weizenbaum between 1964-1966, was notable for identifying keywords and using pre-programmed responses, sometimes giving a startling illusion of understanding.7 Winograd’s work in the early 1970s also involved programming a simulated robot in a “blocks world” based on natural language commands, using syntactic parsing.20 The 1970s saw efforts in creating “conceptual ontologies” to structure real-world information for computers, exemplified by systems like MARGIE, SAM, and PAM.7 These early systems primarily relied on symbolic approaches, hand-coding complex sets of rules and grammars.7

2.2. The Rise of Statistical NLP and Machine Learning (1980s-2000s):

The limitations of purely rule-based systems became apparent, particularly their brittleness and inability to handle the variability of real-world language.7 Starting in the late 1980s and accelerating in the 1990s, a paradigm shift occurred towards statistical NLP, fueled by increasing computational power and the availability of large text corpora.7 Machine learning algorithms began to dominate, learning patterns directly from data rather than relying solely on hand-crafted rules.7 Early (small) language models were developed by IBM in the 1980s, focusing on predicting the next word in a sequence.19 While NLP advanced significantly during this period, direct code generation from natural language remained a niche area, often constrained by the complexity of mapping ambiguous language to precise code structures.

2.3. Deep Learning and Large Language Models (2010s-Present):

The advent of deep learning, particularly recurrent neural networks (RNNs) and later the Transformer architecture (introduced in 2017 22), revolutionized NLP.11 These models could capture complex patterns and long-range dependencies in language data far more effectively than previous statistical methods. The development of large language models (LLMs) pre-trained on vast amounts of text and code data (e.g., GPT series by OpenAI, models from Google, Meta, Anthropic) marked a major turning point.8

These LLMs demonstrated remarkable capabilities in understanding context, generating coherent text, and, crucially, generating code.8 Models like OpenAI’s Codex (powering GitHub Copilot) were specifically trained on massive datasets of public code repositories, enabling them to translate natural language descriptions into functional code snippets with unprecedented proficiency.26 This era saw the emergence of practical NLPg tools and widespread research interest, moving the concept from a long-term vision towards tangible applications.24 Early research focused on deductive/inductive synthesis from specifications, but deep learning enabled generation directly from natural language intent.24 The focus shifted towards leveraging these powerful models for tasks ranging from code completion and generation to automated testing and data analysis via natural language queries.25

3. Primary Techniques and Methodologies in NLPg#

Natural Language Programming relies on a combination of techniques adapted from NLP, machine learning, and programming language research to bridge the gap between human language and executable code. Key methodologies include:

3.1. Semantic Parsing:

Semantic parsing is the core task of converting natural language utterances into formal, machine-readable meaning representations (MRs).31 In the context of NLPg, these MRs often take the form of executable code (like Python, Java, SQL) or logical forms that can be translated into code.4 This process involves understanding the underlying meaning, intent, entities, and relationships expressed in the natural language input and mapping them to the structures and syntax of the target programming language or formal representation.4

Early approaches often used rule-based systems or statistical models trained on annotated data.33 Modern techniques heavily leverage deep learning, particularly sequence-to-sequence models (encoder-decoder architectures) and, more recently, large language models (LLMs) like Codex and GPT variants.31 LLMs trained on code have shown superior performance in generating these representations compared to models trained only on text.31 Techniques like transition-based parsing (e.g., TRANX 32) build the meaning representation incrementally. Challenges include handling complex and cross-domain queries (e.g., the Spider dataset for Text-to-SQL 32), dealing with unseen concepts 34, and ensuring robustness against variations in phrasing or adversarial inputs.31

3.2. Intent Recognition and Slot Filling:

Understanding the user’s goal or intent is fundamental to NLPg.4 Intent recognition (or intent detection/classification) aims to categorize a user’s utterance into one of a predefined set of actions or goals.35 For example, in a database query context, the intent might be “find total sales” or “compare regional performance”.30 In a software development context, it might be “create a function to sort a list” or “refactor this code block”.29

Closely related is slot filling (or slot labeling/tagging), which identifies and extracts specific parameters or entities (slots) required to fulfill the recognized intent.38 For the intent “find total sales,” slots might include “product category” and “time period.” Joint models that perform intent classification and slot filling simultaneously often achieve better performance by leveraging the strong relationship between the two tasks.38

Techniques range from traditional classification models to deep learning approaches using transformers.35 A significant challenge is intent discovery or handling out-of-scope (OOS) requests, where the user’s intent does not fall into any predefined category, requiring the system to identify novel intents or gracefully reject the request.35 LLMs are increasingly used for few-shot or zero-shot intent detection, leveraging their broad knowledge and in-context learning capabilities.36 Prompt engineering, including techniques like Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting, plays a crucial role in guiding LLMs for accurate intent recognition.36

3.3. Ambiguity Resolution:

Natural language is inherently ambiguous, presenting a major obstacle for NLPg systems that require precise interpretations.1 Ambiguity can manifest in several forms 41:

  • Lexical Ambiguity: Words having multiple meanings (e.g., “bank” as a financial institution or river bank).40

  • Syntactic (or Structural) Ambiguity: Sentences allowing multiple grammatical structures (e.g., “She saw the man with the telescope” – who has the telescope?).40

  • Semantic Ambiguity: Sentences having multiple interpretations of meaning, including scope ambiguity involving quantifiers (e.g., “Every student read two poems” – the same two or different ones?).41

  • Pragmatic Ambiguity: Meaning depends on context, speaker intent, or background knowledge (e.g., interpreting sarcasm or indirect requests).42

  • Referential Ambiguity: Pronouns or phrases having unclear antecedents (e.g., “Alice told Jane that she would win” – who is “she”?).40

Resolving ambiguity requires sophisticated techniques 42:

  • Contextual Analysis: Using surrounding text, dialogue history, or domain knowledge to disambiguate.40 LLMs excel at this due to their training on vast contexts.

  • Knowledge Graphs and Ontologies: Leveraging structured knowledge bases to understand word meanings and relationships.42

  • Machine Learning Models: Training models (especially deep learning) to learn disambiguation patterns from large datasets.42

  • Incremental Processing and Local Repair: Processing input word-by-word and using contextual knowledge to maintain a single interpretation, potentially repairing locally if ambiguity arises (as in the Lucia system 44).

  • User Interaction: Prompting the user for clarification when ambiguity cannot be automatically resolved.1

3.4. Code Generation from Natural Language Specifications:

This is the ultimate goal of many NLPg systems. Once the intent and necessary details are understood and ambiguities resolved, the system must generate the corresponding executable code.2

Modern approaches heavily rely on LLMs trained specifically on code (Code LLMs) like CodeLlama, Codex (powering GitHub Copilot), AlphaCode, etc..25 Techniques include:

  • Direct Generation: Using the LLM in a sequence-to-sequence manner to directly translate the NL description into code.47

  • Few-Shot Prompting / In-Context Learning: Providing the LLM with a few examples of NL-to-code pairs within the prompt to guide its generation process for a new query.31

  • Fine-Tuning: Adapting a pre-trained LLM to a specific code generation task or domain by further training on relevant datasets.25

  • Planning and Decomposition: Breaking down complex NL requests into smaller, manageable steps or a plan, which then guides the code generation process. This can involve the LLM generating a plan first, then implementing each step 47, or interactive decomposition guided by the user.49 Techniques like Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting can elicit intermediate reasoning steps but may not be sufficient alone for complex code planning.47

  • Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG): Enhancing generation by retrieving relevant code examples, API documentation, or schema information to provide context to the LLM.14

  • Hybrid Approaches: Combining NL generation with structured editing or sketching, where the user defines the high-level structure (e.g., control flow) and the LLM fills in the implementation details (“holes”).49

Representing code effectively for these models is also crucial, using features like code tokens, Abstract Syntax Trees (ASTs), Intermediate Representations (IRs), or code graphs.51 Ensuring the generated code is correct, efficient, and secure remains a significant challenge.5

4. Current and Potential Applications of NLPg#

Natural Language Programming is finding applications across diverse fields, driven by its potential to lower technical barriers and enhance productivity. Its utility spans software development, data interaction, robotics, and accessibility.

4.1. Software Development:

NLPg offers significant potential to streamline various aspects of the software development lifecycle:

  • Code Assistants and Auto-completion: Tools like GitHub Copilot, Tabnine, and Amazon CodeWhisperer integrate into IDEs, providing real-time code suggestions, completing lines or entire functions based on natural language comments or existing code context.27 This aims to increase developer productivity and reduce time spent on repetitive coding tasks.5 While user experience is often positive, quantitative productivity gains can be inconclusive.27

  • Code Generation from Descriptions: Systems can translate high-level descriptions or comments directly into executable code snippets or even entire functions/classes.2 This is particularly useful for quickly implementing standard patterns, using unfamiliar APIs, or accelerating prototype development.27 Research systems like ANPL explore interactive generation for complex tasks.49

  • Automated Testing: NLP can be used to generate test cases directly from natural language requirements or user stories, reducing manual effort.53 It can also assist in generating realistic test data based on descriptions.53 Tools like Qodo aim to automatically generate unit tests based on code analysis and NL prompts.52 Furthermore, NLP can analyze test results, logs, and error messages to categorize failures and potentially suggest causes.53

  • Debugging and Code Review: NLP-powered tools can assist in detecting syntax errors, logic flaws, redundancies, and deviations from best practices.29 They can potentially automate parts of the code review process by analyzing code quality and structure based on learned patterns.29

  • Documentation Generation: NLP models can automatically generate code comments, summaries, or even README files based on the code itself, reducing the burden of manual documentation.29

  • Lowering Entry Barriers: By allowing interaction via natural language, NLPg tools can make programming concepts more accessible to novice developers or those unfamiliar with specific languages or syntaxes.2

4.2. Data Analysis and Interaction:

A major application area is enabling non-technical users to interact with databases and perform data analysis using natural language queries (NL2SQL or Text2SQL).30

  • NL Querying: Business users, analysts, marketers, and executives can ask questions like “Show total sales for each product last month” or “What percentage of customers are from each region?” in plain language, and the system generates the corresponding SQL query to retrieve the data.30 This democratizes data access, removing the bottleneck of requiring SQL expertise.46

  • Database Integration: Platforms like Oracle Autonomous Database (Select AI 50) and Google BigQuery (with Gemini 46) are integrating LLMs to allow direct natural language querying. These systems often use techniques like RAG to provide database schema context to the LLM, improving query accuracy.30 They may also incorporate ambiguity checks and user feedback loops.46

  • Report Generation and Summarization: Beyond just generating SQL, these systems can execute the query and summarize the results in natural language, providing insights directly to the user.46 Some systems can perform more complex analyses like contribution analysis based on NL requests.46

4.3. Robotics and Control:

Natural language provides an intuitive way to command and control robots, especially for complex or high-level tasks:

  • Task Specification: Users can issue commands like “Navigate to the CNC station and load materials” or “Carry meals from the kitchen to the hallway”.58 The system parses the command, understands the intent and parameters (e.g., objects, locations), and translates it into a sequence of robot actions or a formal controller specification.58

  • Situated Interaction: NLPg systems for robotics often need to be grounded in the robot’s physical environment and sensory input.44 Techniques may involve semantic interpretation linked to world models, vision systems for object recognition, and planning algorithms.58

  • Simplified Programming: Platforms like AgileCore use LLMs to simplify robot programming, allowing users to generate complex motion sequences or configure skills through natural language prompts and step-by-step guidance.58 This lowers the barrier for deploying robots without extensive programming knowledge.

  • Early Examples: Research dating back decades explored NL control for robots, initially using techniques like syntactic parsing and pattern matching for systems like the PUMA arm 20 or simulated robots.59 Modern approaches leverage more sophisticated NLP and formal methods.59

4.4. Accessibility Tools:

NLPg principles can enhance accessibility tools, enabling users with disabilities to interact with technology more easily:

  • Voice Control: Smart assistants like Siri and Alexa heavily rely on NLP (speech recognition, intent understanding) to allow hands-free operation of devices and access to information.60 This is a form of natural language interaction, though not always direct code generation.

  • Assistive Robotics: Robots designed for assistance (e.g., assistive arms, smart wheelchairs, telepresence robots) can benefit from natural language interfaces, allowing users to command them more intuitively.61 For example, instructing an assistive arm via voice commands.

  • End-User Development for Accessibility: Systems like PUMICE allow end-users to program intelligent agents (e.g., on mobile devices) using natural language and demonstrations, potentially enabling users with disabilities to automate tasks tailored to their needs.1

  • Adapting Interfaces: NLP can help create interfaces that adapt to different user needs, potentially translating natural language instructions into actions within applications designed for accessibility.

4.5. Education:

NLPg can serve as an educational tool, helping beginners grasp programming concepts without getting bogged down by syntax early on.3 Interactive systems can translate natural language descriptions of logic into code, providing immediate feedback and bridging the gap between conceptual understanding and implementation.3

Across these applications, the common thread is the use of natural language to make complex computational tasks more accessible, intuitive, and efficient for a wider range of users.

5. Existing Tools, Platforms, and Frameworks#

The landscape of Natural Language Programming is populated by a growing array of tools, platforms, and research frameworks, ranging from widely adopted commercial products to specialized research prototypes.

5.1. Large Language Models (LLMs) as Foundational Tools:

Many current NLPg capabilities are built upon general-purpose LLMs or models specifically fine-tuned for code.

  • OpenAI Models (GPT series, Codex): Models like GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 form the basis for many NLPg applications, including code generation, NL2SQL, and chatbot interfaces.8 Codex, specifically trained on code, powers tools like GitHub Copilot.26 GPT-4o introduces multimodal capabilities.22

  • Google Models (e.g., Gemini, PaLM): Used in applications like NL2SQL within BigQuery 46 and potentially other code generation or understanding tasks.

  • Meta Models (e.g., Llama, Code Llama): Open-source alternatives providing strong performance on code tasks.25 Code Llama is specifically designed for code generation and related tasks.

  • Anthropic Models (e.g., Claude): Known for a focus on safety and aligning with user intent, applicable in sensitive NLPg scenarios.23

  • Other Models (e.g., Mistral, CodeGen, AlphaCode): Contributing to the diversity of available foundational models for NLPg.23

5.2. Code Generation and Assistance Tools:

These tools are typically integrated into developer environments (IDEs) to aid in writing code.

  • GitHub Copilot: Powered by OpenAI Codex/GPT models, it provides code auto-completion, generates code from comments, and offers chat-based assistance within the IDE.26 It’s widely used but studies show mixed results on definitive productivity gains.27

  • Tabnine: Another popular AI code completion tool, often compared with Copilot.52

  • Amazon CodeWhisperer: An AI coding companion from AWS, offering code suggestions and security scans.52

  • Codeium: Provides AI-powered code completion and search capabilities.52

  • AskCodi: Focuses on code generation, explanation, and documentation.52

  • Replit: An online IDE with AI features, including code generation and assistance, supporting multiple languages but requiring an internet connection.52

  • CodeGeeX: Offers code generation, completion, and cross-language translation.52

  • SourceGraph Cody: Aims to understand the entire codebase to provide context-aware assistance.52

5.3. Natural Language to SQL (NL2SQL) Platforms:

These platforms facilitate database querying using natural language.

  • Oracle Autonomous Database Select AI: Integrates LLMs (e.g., OpenAI, Cohere) directly into the database, allowing users to query data using NL prompts. It uses database schema metadata to generate runnable SQL.50 Requires an account with the AI provider.

  • Google BigQuery + Gemini: Leverages Gemini models within BigQuery for NL2SQL tasks. Features include using vector search for relevant examples, ambiguity checks via user interaction, and complex analysis like contribution analysis.46 Requires Google Cloud setup.

  • Third-party Tools and Custom Solutions: Various companies and research projects develop custom NL2SQL interfaces, often using models like GPT-3/4 and techniques like RAG, prompt engineering, and schema mapping.30

5.4. Research Prototypes and Frameworks:

These systems often explore novel interaction paradigms or target specific NLPg challenges.

  • PUMICE: A multimodal system enabling end-users to program mobile agents using both natural language instructions and GUI demonstrations to resolve ambiguities and define concepts.1 Focuses on task automation for non-programmers.

  • ANPL (Abstracted Natural Programming Language): An interactive system where users provide high-level structure (“sketch”) in code (e.g., Python) and specify sub-modules (“holes”) using natural language, which are then implemented by an LLM. It allows recursive decomposition and user refinement.49 Evaluated on complex reasoning tasks (ARC).

  • CoPrompt: A framework designed for collaborative natural language programming, providing mechanisms for sharing, referring to, linking, and requesting feedback on prompts among collaborators.12

  • Vajra: A prototype IDE supporting incremental program creation by parsing NL into statements based on existing code, using semantic parsing and ranking.4

  • Lucia: A cognitive architecture-based system (Soar) using Embodied Construction Grammar (ECG) for incremental, word-by-word NL understanding for robot control, focusing on context-based ambiguity resolution.44

  • CoRE (Chain-of-Reasoning Evaluation): A system proposing a specific syntax for structuring NL instructions, enabling an LLM to act as an interpreter for NL programs, pseudo-code, or flow programs, incorporating external memory and tools.6

  • Systems for NL Specification in Formal Methods: Research exploring direct use of NL specifications within proof assistants, aiming to bridge the gap between informal requirements and formal verification.62

5.5. Evaluation Benchmarks and Metrics:

Evaluating NLPg systems is crucial for measuring progress. Key benchmarks and metrics include:

  • Code Generation:

  • Benchmarks: HumanEval (function-level Python 63), MBPP (Mostly Basic Python Problems 48), APPS, CodeContests, ClassEval (class-level Python 63).

  • Metrics: pass@k (measures functional correctness by checking if at least one of k generated samples passes predefined unit tests 48), BLEU, CodeBLEU, ROUGE, METEOR (measure similarity to reference code), Exact Match.

  • Semantic Parsing (including NL2SQL):

  • Benchmarks: GeoQuery, Scholar 31, ATIS, Spider 32, CoSQL, SparC.

  • Metrics: Exact Match Accuracy (generated logical form/SQL matches the gold standard exactly), Execution Accuracy (generated query produces the correct result when executed).

  • Intent Detection:

  • Benchmarks: CLINC, BANKING 35, SNIPS, ATIS.

  • Metrics: Accuracy, F1-score, Precision, Recall, Out-of-Scope (OOS) detection accuracy.

A significant challenge in evaluation is that existing benchmarks often focus on relatively simple, standalone code generation (e.g., function-level) and may not adequately capture the complexities of real-world programming or the nuances of user interaction.63 Reliably assessing correctness automatically is difficult and depends heavily on the quality of test suites.5 Consequently, human studies are often necessary to evaluate actual usability, user experience, and impact on developer productivity, although these can be resource-intensive and sometimes yield inconclusive results regarding performance gains.1

Table 5.1: Comparative Overview of Selected NLPg Tools/Platforms
Tool/Platform Primary Function Underlying Model (if known) Target User Key Features Key Limitations (from sources)
GitHub Copilot Code completion/generation, Chat OpenAI GPT / Codex Developers IDE integration, NL comment to code, Chat assistance Mixed productivity results, Correctness issues, Potential biases 27
Qodo Unit test generation, Code review AI model (unspecified) Developers Automated test generation, Code behavior coverage, Git integration Newer tool, Less independent evaluation data available 52
Oracle Select AI Natural Language to SQL (NL2SQL) OpenAI, Cohere (configurable) Database Users, Analysts Direct DB integration, Schema-aware generation, NL result summary Requires AI provider account, Subject to LLM imperfections 50
Google BigQuery+Gemini NL2SQL, Data Analysis Google Gemini Database Users, Analysts Vector search integration, Ambiguity checks, Contribution analysis support Requires GCP/BigQuery setup, Complexity in configuration 46
ANPL Complex code generation (Research) LLM (e.g., GPT-3.5) Programmers (study context) Interactive decomposition, Sketching (code structure), Recursive refinement Research prototype, Requires significant user interaction/guidance 49
PUMICE GUI Automation (Research) ML model (unspecified) End-Users Multimodal input (NL + Demo), Concept learning, Ambiguity resolution Research prototype, Focused on mobile app automation 1

The NLPg ecosystem is clearly dynamic and diverse. It encompasses widely deployed commercial tools primarily focused on developer productivity and data accessibility, alongside active research exploring more complex generation tasks, novel interaction methods, and foundational challenges like ambiguity and correctness. This variety reflects both the immense potential and the significant hurdles remaining in the field. There appears to be a growing recognition that purely automated generation faces limitations, particularly for complex tasks, leading to increased interest in human-AI collaborative approaches where users guide, refine, or structure the process, as seen in systems like ANPL or the interactive loops in advanced NL2SQL platforms. This tension between full automation and interactive collaboration highlights the ongoing effort to balance ease of use with the need for precision and control. Furthermore, the difficulty in evaluating these systems effectively remains a critical bottleneck. While automated metrics provide some measure of performance, particularly functional correctness via tests like pass@k, they often fail to capture the full picture of usability, maintainability, or real-world impact, necessitating slower, more expensive human evaluations which themselves can produce ambiguous results regarding productivity.

6. Inherent Challenges and Limitations#

Despite rapid advancements, particularly fueled by LLMs, Natural Language Programming faces significant inherent challenges and limitations that hinder its widespread adoption and reliability, especially for complex or critical applications.

6.1. Ambiguity and Vagueness:

The fundamental nature of human language is its inherent ambiguity, which poses a primary challenge for NLPg systems requiring precise, unambiguous instructions.1 As detailed in Section 3.3, ambiguity exists at multiple levels (lexical, syntactic, semantic, pragmatic, referential).41 Users, especially non-programmers, often express requirements using unclear, vague, or ambiguous terms, particularly when dealing with conditional logic, complex procedures, or abstract concepts.1 Pragmatic ambiguity, where interpretation depends heavily on context and the reader’s background knowledge, is particularly difficult to resolve automatically.45 Overcoming this requires sophisticated context modeling, grounding in domain knowledge, and often necessitates interactive clarification dialogues with the user, adding complexity to the system.1

6.2. Context Understanding:

Accurate interpretation of natural language heavily depends on understanding the surrounding context.8 For NLPg, this includes not only the immediate linguistic context but also the dialogue history, the current state of the code or system being developed, specific domain knowledge (e.g., APIs, database schemas), user expertise, and broader project goals.33 While modern LLMs have significantly improved contextual understanding 22, effectively maintaining and integrating diverse contextual information over long interactions or across complex projects remains challenging.5 Misinterpreting context can lead to incorrect code generation or actions.

6.3. Scalability and Complexity:

While generating relatively simple, self-contained code snippets (e.g., single functions or SQL queries) is becoming increasingly feasible 30, scaling NLPg to handle the complexity of large, real-world software systems is a major hurdle.5 LLMs still struggle with generating complex, multi-component structures like entire classes with intricate dependencies, performing significantly worse on class-level benchmarks compared to method-level ones.63 Managing large codebases, ensuring architectural coherence, and handling deep domain-specific logic through natural language alone are current limitations.5 Research into techniques like automated planning 47 and interactive decomposition 49 aims to address these scaling challenges by breaking down complexity.

6.4. Correctness, Reliability, and Verification:

Perhaps the most critical challenge is ensuring that the code generated by NLPg systems is functionally correct, reliable, secure, and truly aligns with the user’s intended specification.5 LLMs are known to “hallucinate,” producing plausible-sounding but incorrect, inefficient, buggy, or insecure code.14 There are typically no formal guarantees of correctness for the generated output.5 Automatically verifying correctness is difficult and often relies on the availability of comprehensive test suites, which themselves may be incomplete.63 Bridging the gap between informal natural language requirements and formally verified code remains an active area of research, exploring ways to connect NL specifications to proof assistants or generate verifiable artifacts.59 The lack of reliability is a major barrier to using NLPg for mission-critical systems.

6.5. Evaluation Difficulties:

Meaningfully evaluating the performance and utility of NLPg systems is intrinsically hard. Standard automated metrics like pass@k (functional correctness on test cases) or BLEU (similarity to reference code) provide useful signals but have limitations.48 They may not reflect real-world usability, code maintainability, adherence to best practices, or the actual impact on developer productivity.27 Furthermore, benchmarks are often criticized for focusing on overly simplistic or contrived tasks that don’t represent real-world complexity.63 Human studies are crucial for assessing usability and effectiveness but are expensive, time-consuming, and can yield inconclusive or mixed results regarding productivity benefits.27 The inherent non-determinism of LLMs and the variability in human interaction further complicate consistent evaluation.28

6.6. User Interaction and Experience:

Designing effective and intuitive interaction models for NLPg is non-trivial. Key questions include: How can users best express complex intent naturally yet unambiguously? How should the system handle ambiguity – request clarification, present options, make assumptions? How can users easily review, debug, and refine the AI-generated code?.12 Simply using natural language can become verbose or inefficient for certain tasks.6 Striking the right balance between automation and user control is essential but difficult.49 The variability in how different users formulate prompts and how LLMs respond makes designing robust interaction patterns challenging.28

6.7. Domain Specificity and Knowledge:

General-purpose LLMs, despite their broad training, often lack the specific, up-to-date domain knowledge required for many NLPg tasks.6 This could be knowledge of specific APIs, library semantics, database schemas, scientific principles, or institutional coding standards.30 Techniques like Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) 14 or fine-tuning 25 are employed to inject this knowledge, but integrating and utilizing it effectively remains complex. General models may fail to capture nuances of specific domains or user contexts.14

6.8. Ethical Considerations and Bias:

LLMs inherit and can amplify biases present in their vast training data (often scraped from the internet and code repositories).8 This can lead to the generation of code that reflects societal biases, is unfair, or behaves unexpectedly in certain contexts. Ensuring fairness, transparency, and controllability is crucial, especially when NLPg is applied in sensitive domains like healthcare, finance, or human resources.10 Models may also generate harmful, offensive, or inappropriate content.8 Addressing these ethical concerns and promoting responsible development and deployment is paramount.8

These challenges are deeply interconnected. For instance, the inherent ambiguity of natural language complicates the task of understanding user intent and context accurately. This difficulty in interpretation directly contributes to the generation of incorrect or unreliable code, particularly when dealing with complex requirements. The resulting correctness issues, in turn, make evaluation harder, as simple metrics may not capture subtle failures. This entire chain of difficulties necessitates more sophisticated user interaction models to allow for clarification and refinement, adding another layer of complexity. Progress in NLPg therefore requires a holistic approach that addresses these interwoven issues systemically, rather than tackling them in isolation. There exists a fundamental tension between the goal of using flexible, “natural” language input and the absolute need for precise, unambiguous output in the form of executable code. This gap represents the central difficulty that NLPg methodologies strive to overcome through techniques like semantic parsing, contextual reasoning, planning, and interaction. While LLMs have provided powerful new tools to tackle these challenges, they simultaneously introduce or amplify issues like reliability (hallucinations), controllability, ethical biases, and evaluation complexity due to their non-deterministic nature, presenting a new set of hurdles for the field.

The field of Natural Language Programming is rapidly evolving, with active research focused on overcoming current limitations and unlocking new capabilities. Key trends and research directions include:

7.1. Advancements in Language Models:

Progress in NLPg remains closely tied to the underlying LLMs.

  • Scaling and Efficiency: Continued efforts to scale LLMs (more parameters, larger and more diverse datasets) are expected to yield improved understanding and generation capabilities.23 Simultaneously, research focuses on creating more efficient models that require less computational resources.22

  • Architectural Improvements: Developing new model architectures or training techniques to better handle long-range dependencies, maintain context more effectively, and improve reasoning abilities.22

  • Code-Specific Models: Increased focus on developing and refining LLMs specifically pre-trained or fine-tuned on massive code corpora and programming-related tasks, aiming for deeper “code intelligence”.2 Customizing models for the unique structures and semantics of source code is a key goal.2

  • Multimodality: Exploration of multimodal models (like GPT-4o 22) that can process and integrate information from text, images, audio, and potentially other sensor data, enabling NLPg grounded in richer contexts (e.g., generating code based on UI mockups or diagrams).

7.2. Enhanced Techniques:

Beyond foundational models, research is refining specific NLPg techniques.

  • Improved Semantic Parsing and Intent Recognition: Developing parsers capable of handling a wider range of linguistic phenomena, open-domain concepts 34, complex query structures, and subtle user intents expressed in non-technical language.13 Techniques like Retrieval-Augmented Semantic Parsing (RASP) show promise for handling unseen concepts.34

  • Sophisticated Planning and Decomposition: Creating more robust methods for automatically or interactively breaking down complex natural language requests into logical, manageable steps prior to code generation.6 Research explores aligning generation with the compositional and hierarchical structure of code.13

  • Better Ambiguity Resolution: Designing more effective strategies that leverage deeper contextual understanding, external knowledge bases, probabilistic reasoning, and seamless integration of user feedback for clarification.41

  • Feedback Integration: Improving methods for incorporating various forms of human feedback (e.g., natural language corrections, preference rankings, demonstrations) directly into the training loop (like ILF 48) or during inference to enhance model accuracy, alignment, and robustness.

  • Code Representation Learning: Advancing techniques for embedding the semantic and structural properties of source code into vector representations suitable for machine learning models, potentially using ASTs, control-flow graphs, or other code structures.2

7.3. Interaction Paradigms:

Research is moving beyond simple prompt-response interactions.

  • Collaborative Systems: Designing NLPg systems as collaborative partners rather than just tools.5 This involves developing mechanisms for turn-taking, clarification dialogues, shared context management, and enabling users to easily refer to, modify, and build upon previous interactions or collaborators’ work (e.g., CoPrompt 12, interactive debugging 49). The human-computer conversation is becoming more central.26

  • Multimodal Interaction: Combining natural language input with other modalities, such as pointing, sketching, or demonstrating actions within a graphical user interface (GUI), to provide richer context and resolve ambiguity.1

  • Autonomous Agents: Developing more sophisticated LLM-based agents capable of using external tools, accessing real-time information (via RAG 14), planning, and executing multi-step tasks based on high-level natural language instructions.14 Systems like CoRE envision the LLM acting as an interpreter executing structured natural language programs.6

7.4. Integration with Formal Methods and Verification:

A promising direction involves bridging the gap between the flexibility of natural language and the rigor of formal methods.

  • Generating Verifiable Code: Using NLPg to generate code that is provably correct or adheres to formal specifications.62

  • NL Specifications in Formal Tools: Enabling the use of constrained or structured natural language directly within proof assistants or verification environments to specify theorems or properties.62 This could improve requirements traceability and make formal methods more accessible.59

7.5. Domain Specialization and Customization:

Tailoring NLPg systems for specific application domains is crucial for practical utility.

  • Verticalization: Developing models and techniques specialized for domains like scientific computing, bioinformatics, finance, healthcare, or specific engineering disciplines, incorporating relevant domain knowledge and terminology.14

  • Personalization and Contextualization: Fine-tuning models or adapting prompts based on specific user needs, preferences, institutional standards, or project contexts.14

7.6. Addressing Ethical and Reliability Concerns:

Building trust and ensuring responsible deployment requires dedicated research efforts.

  • Bias Detection and Mitigation: Developing techniques to identify and reduce harmful biases in training data and model outputs.8

  • Improving Robustness and Factuality: Research aimed at reducing model “hallucinations,” improving factual accuracy, and enhancing robustness against adversarial inputs or unexpected edge cases.14

  • Security: Ensuring that generated code is secure and does not introduce vulnerabilities.48

  • Explainability and Transparency: Working towards models whose reasoning processes are more understandable, allowing users to trust and debug the generated outputs.23

  • Responsible AI Frameworks: Establishing guidelines and best practices for the ethical development, evaluation, and deployment of NLPg systems.18

The trajectory of NLPg suggests a dual focus: leveraging continued advancements in core AI and LLM capabilities while simultaneously developing specialized techniques (like planning, RAG, feedback mechanisms) and more sophisticated interaction models (collaboration, agents) tailored to the unique challenges of programming with language. Furthermore, for NLPg to realize its full potential, it must move beyond generating isolated code snippets and become more deeply integrated within the broader ecosystems of software development, data analysis, and formal verification, incorporating domain-specific knowledge and collaborative workflows. Critically, addressing the persistent challenges related to reliability, correctness, and ethics is not merely an obstacle but a central research frontier, essential for building user trust and enabling the adoption of NLPg in high-stakes applications.

8. Comparative Analysis: NLPg vs. Traditional Programming#

Natural Language Programming offers a distinct paradigm compared to traditional methods involving formal programming languages (like Python, Java, C++, SQL). Understanding their relative strengths and weaknesses is crucial for assessing the potential impact and appropriate applications of NLPg.

8.1. Accessibility and Learning Curve:

  • NLPg: Offers significantly greater accessibility, particularly for individuals without formal programming training (non-programmers, domain experts, beginners).1 It leverages users’ existing familiarity with natural language, lowering the initial learning curve by reducing the need to memorize complex syntax and rules upfront.2 It can also serve as an educational tool to introduce programming concepts more intuitively.3

  • Traditional: Characterized by a steep learning curve. Mastery requires learning specific, rigid syntax, understanding abstract concepts (variables, control flow, data structures, algorithms), and developing formal operational thinking skills, which can be a barrier for many.2

8.2. Precision, Control, and Ambiguity:

  • NLPg: Suffers from lower inherent precision due to the ambiguity of natural language.1 Translating nuanced, potentially vague human intent into exact, unambiguous code is a core challenge.4 Users typically have less direct, fine-grained control over the generated code, often relying on iterative refinement or prompt engineering. Misinterpretation of intent is a significant risk.4

  • Traditional: Provides high precision and direct control. Formal syntax and semantics ensure that instructions are (ideally) unambiguous.43 Developers explicitly define every aspect of the program’s logic and behavior, offering maximum control over the implementation.

8.3. Speed and Productivity:

  • NLPg: Can potentially accelerate development for specific tasks, such as generating boilerplate code, interacting with unfamiliar APIs, rapid prototyping, or performing routine data queries.3 It aims to shorten development cycles.3 However, the actual time savings can be offset by the effort required for effective prompt design, ambiguity resolution, and debugging the generated code. Empirical studies on productivity gains have sometimes yielded inconclusive results.27

  • Traditional: Manual coding can be time-consuming, especially for complex or repetitive tasks. However, experienced developers working in familiar domains with established tools can achieve high levels of productivity. The development time is often more predictable.

8.4. Debugging and Maintenance:

  • NLPg: Debugging presents unique challenges. Errors might originate from the natural language description, the system’s interpretation of intent, or the code generation process itself. Understanding, modifying, and maintaining potentially large volumes of AI-generated code, which the user did not write directly, can be difficult.5 The long-term maintainability of AI-generated codebases is an open question.

  • Traditional: Debugging is a core skill with established methodologies and tools, although it can still be challenging. Developers work directly with the source code, giving them full visibility and control during debugging and maintenance.

8.5. Expressiveness:

  • NLPg: Aims to enhance expressiveness by allowing users to articulate logic in their natural language.2 However, the current capabilities of NLPg systems might be limited in reliably translating highly complex, novel, or mathematically intricate algorithms from NL descriptions alone. Expressing such logic might still be more feasible and reliable using the formal constructs of a programming language.

  • Traditional: Offers high expressiveness within the defined constructs of the programming language. Allows for the precise and detailed specification of complex algorithms, data structures, and system architectures.

8.6. Collaboration:

  • NLPg: Holds potential to improve collaboration, especially in teams with mixed technical expertise. Using natural language as a common ground can facilitate communication between developers, domain experts, and stakeholders.3 Tools are emerging to explicitly support collaborative NLPg workflows.12

  • Traditional: Collaboration typically revolves around shared understanding of the codebase, supported by comments, documentation, version control systems (like Git), and code reviews. Effective collaboration often requires shared technical knowledge and adherence to coding standards.

8.7. Focus Shift:

  • NLPg: Tends to shift the user’s focus from the how (low-level implementation details, syntax) towards the what (the desired outcome or intent).5 The user acts more like a specifier, collaborator, or supervisor guiding the AI system.5

  • Traditional: Requires developers to focus heavily on the how – the precise algorithmic steps, data manipulation, and syntactic correctness needed to achieve the desired outcome.

Table 8.1: NLPg vs. Traditional Programming: A Comparative Overview
Dimension Natural Language Programming Traditional Programming
Accessibility High; Lower barrier for beginners/non-programmers 2 Low; Requires learning formal syntax & concepts 2
Precision Lower initial precision due to NL ambiguity 1 High precision via formal, unambiguous syntax 43
Control Indirect; Refinement-based, less fine-grained initially Direct; Full control over implementation details
Speed (Certain Tasks) Potentially faster for boilerplate, prototypes, simple queries 29 Can be slower initially, but high for experts in familiar domains
Debugging Complexity Potentially higher; Ambiguity in error source (NL vs. Code) Established methods, but can be complex; Direct code access
Expressiveness High potential 2; Current limits on complex logic High within language constraints; Precise complex algorithms
Collaboration Potential Enhanced potential via shared language 3 Code-centric; Relies on shared technical understanding
Primary Focus Intent (“What”) 5; Specification, Collaboration Implementation (“How”); Algorithms, Syntax

The comparison highlights a fundamental trade-off: NLPg prioritizes accessibility and intuitive interaction by leveraging natural language, but this comes at the cost of the precision, direct control, and inherent lack of ambiguity offered by traditional formal programming languages. This suggests that NLPg is unlikely to be a wholesale replacement for traditional programming in the near term, particularly for developing complex, safety-critical, or highly optimized systems where precision and reliability are paramount. Instead, NLPg is emerging as a powerful augmentative technology. It excels in scenarios where lowering the barrier to entry is key (e.g., enabling analysts to query data 30, assisting novice programmers 3), or where it can significantly speed up specific, often tedious, parts of the development process (e.g., generating boilerplate code 29, using unfamiliar APIs 27, rapid prototyping). The rise of NLPg may also herald a shift in the nature of software development itself, potentially elevating the developer’s role towards higher-level tasks such as precise specification (prompt engineering), problem decomposition, verification of AI-generated outputs, and strategic guidance of AI collaborators, moving away from solely focusing on line-by-line implementation.5

9. Conclusion#

Natural Language Programming represents a significant evolution in human-computer interaction, aiming to harness the power of natural language as a direct medium for instructing computers and generating executable code. Driven primarily by dramatic advances in large language models, NLPg has transitioned from a long-held aspiration to a field with tangible tools and rapidly growing applications across software development, data analysis, robotics, and accessibility. Techniques rooted in semantic parsing, intent recognition, ambiguity resolution, and sophisticated code generation models now enable systems to translate human language into functional outputs with increasing proficiency.

However, the field remains nascent and faces substantial challenges. The inherent ambiguity and vagueness of natural language clash with the need for precision in computation, creating a fundamental translation gap. Ensuring the correctness, reliability, and security of AI-generated code is a critical hurdle, particularly as LLMs can produce plausible but flawed outputs. Scaling NLPg to handle the complexity of large software systems, understanding deep context, evaluating performance meaningfully, and designing effective human-AI interaction paradigms are active areas of research. Furthermore, ethical considerations surrounding bias, transparency, and responsible use are paramount.

The comparison with traditional programming underscores NLPg’s primary strength: accessibility. It lowers the barrier to entry, potentially democratizing programming and data analysis. Yet, this accessibility often comes at the cost of the direct control and guaranteed precision afforded by formal languages. Consequently, NLPg is currently best viewed as a powerful augmentative force rather than a complete replacement for traditional methods. It excels as a productivity tool for developers (e.g., code assistants, test generation), an enabling technology for non-programmers (e.g., NL2SQL), and a facilitator for rapid prototyping and learning.

Future progress hinges on continued advancements in foundational AI models, coupled with the development of specialized NLPg techniques focusing on planning, context integration, feedback mechanisms, and robust ambiguity resolution. A key trajectory involves moving towards more collaborative human-AI systems where natural language facilitates a partnership in problem-solving, rather than serving as a purely one-way instruction mechanism. Integrating NLPg with formal methods holds promise for enhancing reliability. Ultimately, the success of Natural Language Programming will depend not only on technical breakthroughs but also on effectively addressing the challenges of trustworthiness, evaluation, and ethical deployment, paving the way for a future where interacting with computers becomes increasingly natural, intuitive, and powerful.

Works cited#

  1. arXiv:1909.00031v2 [cs.HC] 7 Jan 2020 - NSF Public Access Repository, accessed April 14, 2025, https://par.nsf.gov/servlets/purl/10160125

  2. A Survey of Automatic Code Generation from Natural Language, accessed April 14, 2025, https://xml.jips-k.org/full-text/view?doi=10.3745/JIPS.04.0216

  3. Natural Language Programming: Applications and Benefits - The Couchbase Blog, accessed April 14, 2025, https://www.couchbase.com/blog/natural-language-programming/

  4. Vajra: Step-by-step Programming with Natural Language - Viktor Schlegel, accessed April 14, 2025, https://schlevik.net/assets/pdf/iui2019.pdf

  5. From Syntax to Speech: How Natural Language is Rewriting the Programming Paradigm, accessed April 14, 2025, https://anshadameenza.com/blog/technology/natural-language-programming-revolution/

  6. arXiv:2405.06907v2 [cs.CL] 21 May 2024, accessed April 14, 2025, https://arxiv.org/pdf/2405.06907

  7. Natural language processing - Wikipedia, accessed April 14, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_language_processing

  8. arXiv:2304.02017v5 [cs.CL] 12 Apr 2023, accessed April 14, 2025, https://arxiv.org/pdf/2304.02017v5/1000

  9. Theory of Computation - Lark, accessed April 14, 2025, https://www.larksuite.com/en_us/topics/ai-glossary/theory-of-computation

  10. Proceedings of the First Workshop on Natural Language Processing for Human Resources (NLP4HR 2024) - ACL Anthology, accessed April 14, 2025, https://aclanthology.org/2024.nlp4hr-1.pdf

  11. Natural Language Processing: Comprehensive Guide from Basics to AI, accessed April 14, 2025, https://www.rapidinnovation.io/post/natural-language-processing-from-fundamentals-to-advanced-applications

  12. CoPrompt: Supporting Prompt Sharing and Referring in Collaborative Natural Language Programming - Felicia Li Feng, accessed April 14, 2025, https://felicia35.github.io/coprompt_arxiv.pdf

  13. NoviCode: Generating Programs from Natural Language Utterances by Novices - arXiv, accessed April 14, 2025, https://arxiv.org/html/2407.10626v1

  14. Natural Language Programming in Medicine: Administering Evidence Based Clinical Workflows with Autonomous Agents Powered by Gene - arXiv, accessed April 14, 2025, https://arxiv.org/pdf/2401.02851

  15. A Survey of Automatic Code Generation from Natural Language - Intelligent Software Engineering Lab, accessed April 14, 2025, https://isel.handong.edu/papers/Project-Jarvis-01.pdf

  16. AI in Software Development: The Evolution [2024] - KVY Technology, accessed April 14, 2025, https://kvytechnology.com/blog/software/ai-in-software-development/

  17. INFLUENCE OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE ON THE EVOLUTION OF CODING LANGUAGES: A REVIEW - IRJET, accessed April 14, 2025, https://www.irjet.net/archives/V11/i6/IRJET-V11I631.pdf

  18. Unleashing the Revolutionary Power of AI: A Compelling Historical Journey, accessed April 14, 2025, https://eimrglobal.org/history-of-ai/

  19. A Brief History of Large Language Models - DATAVERSITY, accessed April 14, 2025, https://www.dataversity.net/a-brief-history-of-large-language-models/

  20. Voice/Natural Language Interfacing for Robotic Control. - DTIC, accessed April 14, 2025, https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA187765.pdf

  21. A Survey of Machine Learning for Big Code and Naturalness - arXiv, accessed April 14, 2025, https://arxiv.org/pdf/1709.06182

  22. Unlocking the Potential of ChatGPT: A Comprehensive Exploration of its Applications, Advantages, Limitations, and Future Directions in Natural Language Processing - arXiv, accessed April 14, 2025, https://arxiv.org/html/2304.02017v11

  23. A Comprehensive Comparison of All LLMs - AI-Pro, accessed April 14, 2025, https://ai-pro.org/learn-ai/articles/a-comprehensive-comparison-of-all-llms/

  24. Automatic Programming: Large Language Models and Beyond - arXiv, accessed April 14, 2025, https://arxiv.org/html/2405.02213v2

  25. [2503.01245] Large Language Models for Code Generation: A Comprehensive Survey of Challenges, Techniques, Evaluation, and Applications - arXiv, accessed April 14, 2025, https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.01245

  26. Redefining Computer Science Education: Code-Centric to Natural Language Programming with AI-Based No-Code Platforms - arXiv, accessed April 14, 2025, https://arxiv.org/pdf/2308.13539

  27. In-IDE Code Generation from Natural Language: Promise and Challenges - arXiv, accessed April 14, 2025, https://arxiv.org/pdf/2101.11149

  28. Understanding the Human-LLM Dynamic: A Literature Survey of LLM Use in Programming Tasks - arXiv, accessed April 14, 2025, https://arxiv.org/html/2410.01026v1

  29. What is Natural language processing (NLP)? - GitHub, accessed April 14, 2025, https://github.com/resources/articles/ai/natural-language-processing

  30. Generating value from enterprise data: Best practices for Text2SQL and generative AI - AWS, accessed April 14, 2025, https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/machine-learning/generating-value-from-enterprise-data-best-practices-for-text2sql-and-generative-ai/

  31. arXiv:2301.12868v3 [cs.CL] 9 Mar 2023, accessed April 14, 2025, https://arxiv.org/pdf/2301.12868

  32. Semantic Parsing - Papers With Code, accessed April 14, 2025, https://paperswithcode.com/task/semantic-parsing

  33. Evaluating Large Language Models in Semantic Parsing for Conversational Question Answering over Knowledge Graphs - arXiv, accessed April 14, 2025, https://arxiv.org/html/2401.01711v1

  34. Retrieval-Augmented Semantic Parsing: Using Large Language Models to Improve Generalization - arXiv, accessed April 14, 2025, https://arxiv.org/html/2412.10207v1

  35. IntentGPT: Few-shot Intent Discovery with Large Language Models - arXiv, accessed April 14, 2025, https://arxiv.org/html/2411.10670v1

  36. User Intent Recognition and Satisfaction with Large Language Models: A User Study with ChatGPT - arXiv, accessed April 14, 2025, https://arxiv.org/html/2402.02136v2

  37. Domain Adaptation in Intent Classification Systems: A Review - arXiv, accessed April 14, 2025, https://arxiv.org/html/2404.14415v1

  38. A survey of joint intent detection and slot-filling models in natural language understanding - arXiv, accessed April 14, 2025, https://arxiv.org/pdf/2101.08091

  39. Intent Detection in the Age of LLMs - arXiv, accessed April 14, 2025, https://arxiv.org/html/2410.01627v1

  40. What is Natural Language Ambiguity? - Moveworks, accessed April 14, 2025, https://www.moveworks.com/us/en/resources/ai-terms-glossary/natural-language-ambiguity

  41. A Taxonomy of Ambiguity Types for NLP - arXiv, accessed April 14, 2025, https://arxiv.org/html/2403.14072v1

  42. Decipher Ambiguity in NLPs for Sharper AI Intelligence - Shelf.io, accessed April 14, 2025, https://shelf.io/blog/ambiguity-in-nlp-systems/

  43. (PDF) Resolving Ambiguities in Natural Language Software Requirements: A Comprehensive Survey - ResearchGate, accessed April 14, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281854022_Resolving_Ambiguities_in_Natural_Language_Software_Requirements_A_Comprehensive_Survey

  44. Ambiguity Resolution in a Cognitive Model of Language Comprehension - University of Michigan, accessed April 14, 2025, https://web.eecs.umich.edu/~soar/sitemaker/docs/pubs/Lindes_Laird_ICCM-2017.pdf

  45. A Critical Study of Pragmatic Ambiguity Detection in Natural Language Requirements, accessed April 14, 2025, https://www.ijisae.org/index.php/IJISAE/article/view/2681

  46. NL2SQL with BigQuery and Gemini | Google Cloud Blog, accessed April 14, 2025, https://cloud.google.com/blog/products/data-analytics/nl2sql-with-bigquery-and-gemini

  47. Self-planning Code Generation with Large Language Models - arXiv, accessed April 14, 2025, https://arxiv.org/pdf/2303.06689

  48. Learning from Natural Language Feedback - OpenReview, accessed April 14, 2025, https://openreview.net/pdf?id=xo3hI5MwvU

  49. ANPL: Towards Natural Programming with Interactive Decomposition - Autodesk Research, accessed April 14, 2025, https://www.research.autodesk.com/app/uploads/2024/05/anpl-natural-programming-paper.pdf

  50. Introducing Select AI - Natural Language to SQL Generation on Autonomous Database, accessed April 14, 2025, https://blogs.oracle.com/machinelearning/post/introducing-natural-language-to-sql-generation-on-autonomous-database

  51. Deep Learning for Code Intelligence: Survey, Benchmark and Toolkit - arXiv, accessed April 14, 2025, https://arxiv.org/html/2401.00288v1

  52. 15 Best AI Coding Assistant Tools in 2025 - Qodo, accessed April 14, 2025, https://www.qodo.ai/blog/best-ai-coding-assistant-tools/

  53. Understanding the role of NLP in test automation - ACCELQ, accessed April 14, 2025, https://www.accelq.com/blog/nlp-in-test-automation/

  54. From Language Processing to Test Automation: The Evolution of Transformers - Functionize, accessed April 14, 2025, https://www.functionize.com/blog/from-language-processing-to-test-automation-the-evolution-of-transformers

  55. Build a robust text-to-SQL solution generating complex queries, self-correcting, and querying diverse data sources | AWS Machine Learning Blog, accessed April 14, 2025, https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/machine-learning/build-a-robust-text-to-sql-solution-generating-complex-queries-self-correcting-and-querying-diverse-data-sources/

  56. GenAI-powered Chatbot for Generating Instant SQL Queries from Natural Language, accessed April 14, 2025, https://zazmic.com/genai-powered-chatbot-for-generating-instant-sql-queries-from-natural-language-blog/

  57. Creating a Natural Language to SQL Application with OpenAI’s GPT-3 and Its Applications Across Industries | Emergys, accessed April 14, 2025, https://www.emergys.com/blog/creating-a-natural-language-to-sql-application-with-openais-gpt-3-and-its-applications-across-industries/

  58. The AI assistant: Programming in natural language | Agile Robots SE, accessed April 14, 2025, https://www.agile-robots.com/en/news/detail/support-from-ai-assistantsprogramming-in-natural-language

  59. Sorry Dave, I’m Afraid I Can’t Do That: Explaining Unachievable Robot Tasks Using Natural Language, accessed April 14, 2025, https://www.roboticsproceedings.org/rss09/p23.pdf

  60. 8 Natural Language Processing (NLP) Examples - Tableau, accessed April 14, 2025, https://www.tableau.com/learn/articles/natural-language-processing-examples

  61. Teaching Accessible Computing - Robotics + Accessibility - Bookish.press, accessed April 14, 2025, https://bookish.press/tac/Robotics

  62. Trustworthy Formal Natural Language Specifications - arXiv, accessed April 14, 2025, https://arxiv.org/pdf/2310.03885

  63. Evaluating Large Language Models in Class-Level Code Generation, accessed April 14, 2025, https://mingwei-liu.github.io/assets/pdf/ICSE2024ClassEval-V2.pdf

  64. arXiv:2409.08775v1 [cs.HC] 13 Sep 2024 - CMU School of Computer Science, accessed April 14, 2025, https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~sherryw/assets/pubs/2024-rope.pdf

**