When Prompts Go Wrong: Evaluating Code Model Robustness to Ambiguous, Contradictory, and Incomplete Task Descriptions

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2507.20439v1
• Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2025 23:16:14 GMT
• Title: When Prompts Go Wrong: Evaluating Code Model Robustness to Ambiguous, Contradictory, and Incomplete Task Descriptions
• Authors: Maya Larbi, Amal Akli, Mike Papadakis, Rihab Bouyousfi, Maxime Cordy, Federica Sarro, Yves Le Traon,
• Abstract summary: Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive performance in code generation tasks under idealized conditions.<n>In practice, task descriptions frequently exhibit ambiguity, incompleteness, or internal contradictions.<n>We present the first empirical study examining the robustness of state-of-the-art code generation models when faced with such unclear task descriptions.
• Score: 23.5858385520752
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive performance in code generation tasks under idealized conditions, where task descriptions are clear and precise. However, in practice, task descriptions frequently exhibit ambiguity, incompleteness, or internal contradictions. In this paper, we present the first empirical study examining the robustness of state-of-the-art code generation models when faced with such unclear task descriptions. We extend the HumanEval and MBPP benchmarks by systematically introducing realistic task descriptions flaws through guided mutation strategies, producing a dataset that mirrors the messiness of informal developer instructions. We evaluate multiple LLMs of varying sizes and architectures, analyzing their functional correctness and failure modes across task descriptions categories. Our findings reveal that even minor imperfections in task description phrasing can cause significant performance degradation, with contradictory task descriptions resulting in numerous logical errors. Moreover, while larger models tend to be more resilient than smaller variants, they are not immune to the challenges posed by unclear requirements. We further analyze semantic error patterns and identify correlations between description clarity, model behavior, and error types. Our results underscore the critical need for developing LLMs that are not only powerful but also robust to the imperfections inherent in natural user tasks, highlighting important considerations for improving model training strategies, designing more realistic evaluation benchmarks, and ensuring reliable deployment in practical software development environments.

Related papers

• Revisiting Pre-trained Language Models for Vulnerability Detection [5.747350434960454]
  The rapid advancement of pre-trained language models (PLMs) has demonstrated promising results for various code-related tasks.<n>However, their effectiveness in detecting real-world vulnerabilities remains a critical challenge.<n>This paper introduces RevisitVD, an extensive evaluation of 17 PLMs spanning smaller code-specific PLMs and large-scale PLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-22T17:58:49Z)
• EIFBENCH: Extremely Complex Instruction Following Benchmark for Large Language Models [65.48902212293903]
  We present the Extremely Complex Instruction Following Benchmark (EIFBENCH) for evaluating large language models (LLMs)<n>EIFBENCH includes multi-task scenarios that enable comprehensive assessment across diverse task types concurrently.<n>We also propose the Segment Policy Optimization (SegPO) algorithm to enhance the LLM's ability to accurately fulfill multi-task workflow.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-10T02:39:55Z)
• Reasoning Multimodal Large Language Model: Data Contamination and Dynamic Evaluation [9.434966074326056]
  Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) show impressive vision-language benchmark performance, yet growing concerns about data contamination risk masking true generalization.<n>We propose a novel dynamic evaluation framework to rigorously assess MLLM generalization, moving beyond static benchmarks.<n>We demonstrate that fine-tuning on simulated test data (extreme contamination) drastically sharpens task-specific performance but harms overall generalization.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-08T15:52:38Z)
• LLM Performance for Code Generation on Noisy Tasks [0.41942958779358674]
  We show that large language models (LLMs) can solve tasks obfuscated to a level where the text would be unintelligible to human readers.<n>We report empirical evidence of distinct performance decay patterns between contaminated and unseen datasets.<n>We propose measuring the decay of performance under obfuscation as a possible strategy for detecting dataset contamination.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-29T16:11:18Z)
• Statistical Runtime Verification for LLMs via Robustness Estimation [0.0]
  Adversarial robustness verification is essential for ensuring the safe deployment of Large Language Models (LLMs) in runtime-critical applications.<n>This paper presents a case study adapting and extending the RoMA statistical verification framework to assess its feasibility as an online runtime robustness monitor for LLMs in black-box deployment settings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-24T16:36:19Z)
• Interactive Agents to Overcome Ambiguity in Software Engineering [61.40183840499932]
  AI agents are increasingly being deployed to automate tasks, often based on ambiguous and underspecified user instructions.<n>Making unwarranted assumptions and failing to ask clarifying questions can lead to suboptimal outcomes.<n>We study the ability of LLM agents to handle ambiguous instructions in interactive code generation settings by evaluating proprietary and open-weight models on their performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-18T17:12:26Z)
• Learning Task Representations from In-Context Learning [73.72066284711462]
  Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable proficiency in in-context learning.<n>We introduce an automated formulation for encoding task information in ICL prompts as a function of attention heads.<n>We show that our method's effectiveness stems from aligning the distribution of the last hidden state with that of an optimally performing in-context-learned model.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-08T00:16:44Z)
• Evaluating Generative Language Models in Information Extraction as Subjective Question Correction [49.729908337372436]
  We propose a new evaluation method, SQC-Score. Inspired by the principles in subjective question correction, we propose a new evaluation method, SQC-Score. Results on three information extraction tasks show that SQC-Score is more preferred by human annotators than the baseline metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-04T15:36:53Z)
• Decomposing Uncertainty for Large Language Models through Input Clarification Ensembling [69.83976050879318]
  In large language models (LLMs), identifying sources of uncertainty is an important step toward improving reliability, trustworthiness, and interpretability. In this paper, we introduce an uncertainty decomposition framework for LLMs, called input clarification ensembling. Our approach generates a set of clarifications for the input, feeds them into an LLM, and ensembles the corresponding predictions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-15T05:58:35Z)
• Revisit Input Perturbation Problems for LLMs: A Unified Robustness Evaluation Framework for Noisy Slot Filling Task [18.623619585980688]
  We propose a unified robustness evaluation framework based on the slot-filling task to evaluate the dialogue understanding capability of large language models. Specifically, we construct a input perturbation evaluation dataset, Noise-LLM, which contains five types of single perturbation and four types of mixed perturbation data. Our aim is to assess how well various robustness methods of LLMs perform in real-world noisy scenarios.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-10T10:22:05Z)
• Exposing and Addressing Cross-Task Inconsistency in Unified Vision-Language Models [80.23791222509644]
  Inconsistent AI models are considered brittle and untrustworthy by human users. We find that state-of-the-art vision-language models suffer from a surprisingly high degree of inconsistent behavior across tasks. We propose a rank correlation-based auxiliary training objective, computed over large automatically created cross-task contrast sets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-28T16:57:12Z)
• Masked Language Modeling and the Distributional Hypothesis: Order Word Matters Pre-training for Little [74.49773960145681]
  A possible explanation for the impressive performance of masked language model (MLM)-training is that such models have learned to represent the syntactic structures prevalent in NLP pipelines. In this paper, we propose a different explanation: pre-trains succeed on downstream tasks almost entirely due to their ability to model higher-order word co-occurrence statistics. Our results show that purely distributional information largely explains the success of pre-training, and underscore the importance of curating challenging evaluation datasets that require deeper linguistic knowledge.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-04-14T06:30:36Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.