Uncovering Systematic Failures of LLMs in Verifying Code Against Natural Language Specifications

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2508.12358v1
• Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2025 13:07:26 GMT
• Title: Uncovering Systematic Failures of LLMs in Verifying Code Against Natural Language Specifications
• Authors: Haolin Jin, Huaming Chen,
• Abstract summary: Large language models (LLMs) have become essential tools in software development, widely used for requirements engineering, code generation and review tasks.<n>In this paper, we uncover a systematic failure of LLMs in evaluating whether code aligns with natural language requirements.<n>Our results reveal that LLMs frequently misclassify correct code implementations as either not satisfying requirements'' or containing potential defects.
• Score: 0.6813925418351435
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) have become essential tools in software development, widely used for requirements engineering, code generation and review tasks. Software engineers often rely on LLMs to assess whether system code implementation satisfy task requirements, thereby enhancing code robustness and accuracy. However, it remains unclear whether LLMs can reliably determine whether the code complies fully with the given task descriptions, which is usually natural language specifications. In this paper, we uncover a systematic failure of LLMs in evaluating whether code aligns with natural language requirements. Specifically, with widely used benchmarks, we employ unified prompts to judge code correctness. Our results reveal that LLMs frequently misclassify correct code implementations as either ``not satisfying requirements'' or containing potential defects. Surprisingly, more complex prompting, especially when leveraging prompt engineering techniques involving explanations and proposed corrections, leads to higher misjudgment rate, which highlights the critical reliability issues in using LLMs as code review assistants. We further analyze the root causes of these misjudgments, and propose two improved prompting strategies for mitigation. For the first time, our findings reveals unrecognized limitations in LLMs to match code with requirements. We also offer novel insights and practical guidance for effective use of LLMs in automated code review and task-oriented agent scenarios.

Related papers

• Are LLMs Reliable Code Reviewers? Systematic Overcorrection in Requirement Conformance Judgement [8.059802912761919]
  We uncover a systematic failure of large language models (LLMs) in matching code to natural language requirements.<n>More detailed prompt design, particularly with those requiring explanations and proposed corrections, leads to higher misjudgment rates.<n>We propose a Fix-guided Verification Filter that treats the model proposed fix as executable counterfactual evidence.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-28T08:35:25Z)
• Operational Robustness of LLMs on Code Generation [2.9232837969697965]
  It is now common practice in software development for large language models (LLMs) to be used to generate program code.<n>This paper is concerned in particular with how sensitive LLMs are to variations in descriptions of the coding tasks.<n>Existing techniques for evaluating this robustness are unsuitable for code generation because the input data space of natural language descriptions is discrete.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-21T11:21:13Z)
• CodeSimpleQA: Scaling Factuality in Code Large Language Models [55.705748501461294]
  We present CodeSimpleQA, a comprehensive benchmark designed to evaluate the factual accuracy of code LLMs in answering code-related questions.<n>We also create CodeSimpleQA-Instruct, a large-scale instruction corpus with 66M samples, and develop a post-training framework combining supervised fine-tuning and reinforcement learning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-22T14:27:17Z)
• LLM Agents for Generating Microservice-based Applications: how complex is your specification? [0.0]
  We explore code synthesis for microservice-based applications.<n>We propose a metric for scoring the difficulty of a specification.<n>The higher the score, the more difficult it is to generate code for the specification.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-22T12:34:22Z)
• RuleArena: A Benchmark for Rule-Guided Reasoning with LLMs in Real-World Scenarios [58.90106984375913]
  RuleArena is a novel and challenging benchmark designed to evaluate the ability of large language models (LLMs) to follow complex, real-world rules in reasoning.<n> Covering three practical domains -- airline baggage fees, NBA transactions, and tax regulations -- RuleArena assesses LLMs' proficiency in handling intricate natural language instructions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-12T06:08:46Z)
• What's Wrong with Your Code Generated by Large Language Models? An Extensive Study [80.18342600996601]
  Large language models (LLMs) produce code that is shorter yet more complicated as compared to canonical solutions. We develop a taxonomy of bugs for incorrect codes that includes three categories and 12 sub-categories, and analyze the root cause for common bug types. We propose a novel training-free iterative method that introduces self-critique, enabling LLMs to critique and correct their generated code based on bug types and compiler feedback.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-08T17:27:17Z)
• HumanEvalComm: Benchmarking the Communication Competence of Code Generation for LLMs and LLM Agent [2.8391355909797644]
  Large language models (LLMs) have significantly improved their ability to perform tasks in the field of code generation.<n>There is still a gap between LLMs being capable coders and being top-tier software engineers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-31T22:06:18Z)
• InfiBench: Evaluating the Question-Answering Capabilities of Code Large Language Models [56.723509505549536]
  InfiBench is the first large-scale freeform question-answering (QA) benchmark for code to our knowledge. It comprises 234 carefully selected high-quality Stack Overflow questions that span across 15 programming languages. We conduct a systematic evaluation for over 100 latest code LLMs on InfiBench, leading to a series of novel and insightful findings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-11T02:06:30Z)
• CodeMind: Evaluating Large Language Models for Code Reasoning [6.819757372634151]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have been widely used to automate programming tasks.<n>This paper introduces CodeMind, a framework designed to gauge the code reasoning abilities of LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-15T02:24:46Z)
• Code Prompting Elicits Conditional Reasoning Abilities in Text+Code LLMs [65.2379940117181]
  We introduce code prompting, a chain of prompts that transforms a natural language problem into code. We find that code prompting exhibits a high-performance boost for multiple LLMs. Our analysis of GPT 3.5 reveals that the code formatting of the input problem is essential for performance improvement.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-18T15:32:24Z)
• If LLM Is the Wizard, Then Code Is the Wand: A Survey on How Code Empowers Large Language Models to Serve as Intelligent Agents [81.60906807941188]
  Large language models (LLMs) are trained on a combination of natural language and formal language (code) Code translates high-level goals into executable steps, featuring standard syntax, logical consistency, abstraction, and modularity.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-01T16:51:20Z)
• Fixing Large Language Models' Specification Misunderstanding for Better Code Generation [13.494822086550604]
  muFiX is a novel prompting technique to improve the code generation performance of large language models (LLMs)<n>It first exploits test case analysis to obtain specification understanding and enables a self-improvement process.<n>muFiX further fixes the specification understanding towards the direction reducing the gap between the provided understanding and the actual understanding.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-28T02:58:07Z)

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.