Artificial or Just Artful? Do LLMs Bend the Rules in Programming?

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2512.21028v1
• Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2025 07:51:15 GMT
• Title: Artificial or Just Artful? Do LLMs Bend the Rules in Programming?
• Authors: Oussama Ben Sghaier, Kevin Delcourt, Houari Sahraoui,
• Abstract summary: We investigate how Large Language Models adapt their code generation strategies when exposed to test cases under different prompting conditions.<n>Our results show that test visibility dramatically alters performance, correctness nearly doubles for some models, while explicit restrictions or partial exposure only partially mitigate this effect.
• Score: 2.798697306330988
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) are widely used for automated code generation, yet their apparent successes often mask a tension between pretraining objectives and alignment choices. While pretraining encourages models to exploit all available signals to maximize success, alignment, whether through fine-tuning or prompting, may restrict their use. This conflict is especially salient in agentic AI settings, for instance when an agent has access to unit tests that, although intended for validation, act as strong contextual signals that can be leveraged regardless of explicit prohibitions. In this paper, we investigate how LLMs adapt their code generation strategies when exposed to test cases under different prompting conditions. Using the BigCodeBench (Hard) dataset, we design five prompting conditions that manipulate test visibility and impose explicit or implicit restrictions on their use. We evaluate five LLMs (four open-source and one closed-source) across correctness, code similarity, program size, and code churn, and analyze cross-model consistency to identify recurring adaptation strategies. Our results show that test visibility dramatically alters performance, correctness nearly doubles for some models, while explicit restrictions or partial exposure only partially mitigate this effect. Beyond raw performance, we identify four recurring adaptation strategies, with test-driven refinement emerging as the most frequent. These results highlight how LLMs adapt their behavior when exposed to contextual signals that conflict with explicit instructions, providing useful insight into how models reconcile pretraining objectives with alignment constraints.

Related papers

• PromptCD: Test-Time Behavior Enhancement via Polarity-Prompt Contrastive Decoding [85.22047087898311]
  We introduce Polarity-Prompt Contrastive Decoding (PromptCD), a test-time behavior control method that generalizes contrastive decoding to broader enhancement settings.<n>PromptCD constructs paired positive and negative guiding prompts for a target behavior and contrasts model responses to reinforce desirable outcomes.<n>Experiments on the "3H" alignment objectives demonstrate consistent and substantial improvements, indicating that post-trained models can achieve meaningful self-enhancement purely at test time.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-24T08:56:52Z)
• On the Paradoxical Interference between Instruction-Following and Task Solving [50.75960598434753]
  Instruction following aims to align Large Language Models (LLMs) with human intent by specifying explicit constraints on how tasks should be performed.<n>We reveal a counterintuitive phenomenon: instruction following can paradoxically interfere with LLMs' task-solving capability.<n>We propose a metric, SUSTAINSCORE, to quantify the interference of instruction following with task solving.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-29T17:48:56Z)
• SWAP: Towards Copyright Auditing of Soft Prompts via Sequential Watermarking [58.475471437150674]
  We propose sequential watermarking for soft prompts (SWAP)<n>SWAP encodes watermarks through a specific order of defender-specified out-of-distribution classes.<n>Experiments on 11 datasets demonstrate SWAP's effectiveness, harmlessness, and robustness against potential adaptive attacks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-05T13:48:48Z)
• Where Did It Go Wrong? Attributing Undesirable LLM Behaviors via Representation Gradient Tracing [12.835224376066769]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable capabilities, yet their deployment is frequently undermined by undesirable behaviors.<n>We introduce a novel and efficient framework that diagnoses a range of undesirable LLM behaviors by analyzing representation and its gradients.<n>We systematically evaluate our method for tasks that include tracking harmful content, detecting backdoor poisoning, and identifying knowledge contamination.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-26T12:07:47Z)
• Instruction Boundary: Quantifying Biases in LLM Reasoning under Various Coverage [34.247904738521136]
  We investigate how different instruction formats can either facilitate or mislead LLM reasoning ability.<n>We introduce the concept of Instruction Boundary, which systematically analyzes how different levels of prompt coverage can lead to reasoning biases.<n>We propose BiasDetector, a unified framework that quantifies LLMs' ability to identify sparse labels under different kinds of Instruction Boundary conditions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-24T16:15:26Z)
• SAEL: Leveraging Large Language Models with Adaptive Mixture-of-Experts for Smart Contract Vulnerability Detection [14.581402965011117]
  We propose SAEL, an LLM-based framework for smart contract vulnerability detection.<n>We first design targeted prompts to guide LLMs in identifying vulnerabilities and generating explanations.<n>Next, we apply prompt-tuning on CodeT5 and T5 to process contract code and explanations, enhancing task-specific performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-30T04:28:00Z)
• Teaching Your Models to Understand Code via Focal Preference Alignment [70.71693365502212]
  In existing approaches, a set of n candidate solutions is evaluated based on test case success rates.<n>Because this approach aligns entire failing code blocks rather than pinpointing specific errors, it lacks the granularity necessary to capture meaningful error-correction relationships.<n>We propose Target-DPO, a new preference alignment framework that mimics human iterative debug to refine Code LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-04T16:56:34Z)
• Adaptive Distraction: Probing LLM Contextual Robustness with Automated Tree Search [76.54475437069395]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) often struggle to maintain their original performance when faced with semantically coherent but task-irrelevant contextual information.<n>We propose a dynamic distraction generation framework based on tree search, where the generation process is guided by model behavior.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-03T18:43:36Z)
• InferAligner: Inference-Time Alignment for Harmlessness through Cross-Model Guidance [56.184255657175335]
  We develop textbfInferAligner, a novel inference-time alignment method that utilizes cross-model guidance for harmlessness alignment. Experimental results show that our method can be very effectively applied to domain-specific models in finance, medicine, and mathematics. It significantly diminishes the Attack Success Rate (ASR) of both harmful instructions and jailbreak attacks, while maintaining almost unchanged performance in downstream tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-20T10:41:03Z)
• Can LLMs Follow Simple Rules? [28.73820874333199]
  Rule-following Language Evaluation Scenarios (RuLES) is a framework for measuring rule-following ability in Large Language Models. RuLES consists of 14 simple text scenarios in which the model is instructed to obey various rules while interacting with the user. We show that almost all current models struggle to follow scenario rules, even on straightforward test cases.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-06T08:50:29Z)
• Learning impartial policies for sequential counterfactual explanations using Deep Reinforcement Learning [0.0]
  Recently Reinforcement Learning (RL) methods have been proposed that seek to learn policies for discovering SCFs, thereby enhancing scalability. In this work, we identify shortcomings in existing methods that can result in policies with undesired properties, such as a bias towards specific actions. We propose to use the output probabilities of the classifier to create a more informative reward, to mitigate this effect.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-01T13:50:47Z)
• ReEval: Automatic Hallucination Evaluation for Retrieval-Augmented Large Language Models via Transferable Adversarial Attacks [91.55895047448249]
  This paper presents ReEval, an LLM-based framework using prompt chaining to perturb the original evidence for generating new test cases. We implement ReEval using ChatGPT and evaluate the resulting variants of two popular open-domain QA datasets. Our generated data is human-readable and useful to trigger hallucination in large language models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-19T06:37:32Z)

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.