Are LLMs Reliable Code Reviewers? Systematic Overcorrection in Requirement Conformance Judgement

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2603.00539v1
• Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2026 08:35:25 GMT
• Title: Are LLMs Reliable Code Reviewers? Systematic Overcorrection in Requirement Conformance Judgement
• Authors: Haolin Jin, Huaming Chen,
• Abstract summary: 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.
• Score: 8.059802912761919
• 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 verify if code implementation satisfy task requirements, thereby ensuring code robustness and accuracy. However, it remains unclear whether LLMs can reliably determine code against the given task descriptions, which is usually in a form of natural language specifications. In this paper, we uncover a systematic failure of LLMs in matching code to natural language requirements. Specifically, with widely adopted benchmarks and unified prompts design, we demonstrate that LLMs frequently misclassify correct code implementation as non-compliant or defective. Surprisingly, we find that more detailed prompt design, particularly with those requiring explanations and proposed corrections, leads to higher misjudgment rates, highlighting critical reliability issues for LLM-based code assistants. We further analyze the mechanisms driving these failures and evaluate the reliability of rationale-required judgments. Building on these findings, we propose a Fix-guided Verification Filter that treats the model proposed fix as executable counterfactual evidence, and validates the original and revised implementations using benchmark tests and spec-constrained augmented tests. Our results expose previously under-explored limitations in LLM-based code review capabilities, and provide practical guidance for integrating LLM-based reviewers with safeguards in automated review and development pipelines.

Related papers

• 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)
• Uncovering Systematic Failures of LLMs in Verifying Code Against Natural Language Specifications [0.6813925418351435]
  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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-17T13:07:26Z)
• CodeJudgeBench: Benchmarking LLM-as-a-Judge for Coding Tasks [63.562924932512765]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have advanced the state-of-the-art in various coding tasks.<n>LLMs can also serve as judges, assessing and comparing the quality of responses generated by other models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-14T17:56:29Z)
• Augmenting Large Language Models with Static Code Analysis for Automated Code Quality Improvements [0.36832029288386137]
  This study examined code issue detection and revision automation by integrating Large Language Models (LLMs) into software development.<n>A static code analysis framework detects issues such as bugs, vulnerabilities, and code smells within a large-scale software project.<n>Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) is implemented to enhance the relevance and precision of the revisions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-12T03:39:25Z)
• Integrating Expert Knowledge into Logical Programs via LLMs [3.637365301757111]
  ExKLoP is a framework designed to evaluate how effectively Large Language Models integrate expert knowledge into logical reasoning systems.<n>This capability is especially valuable in engineering, where expert knowledge-such as manufacturer-recommended operational ranges-can be directly embedded into automated monitoring systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-17T19:18:23Z)
• Improving LLM Reasoning through Scaling Inference Computation with Collaborative Verification [52.095460362197336]
  Large language models (LLMs) struggle with consistent and accurate reasoning. LLMs are trained primarily on correct solutions, reducing their ability to detect and learn from errors. We propose a novel collaborative method integrating Chain-of-Thought (CoT) and Program-of-Thought (PoT) solutions for verification.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-05T05:21:48Z)
• Exploring Automatic Cryptographic API Misuse Detection in the Era of LLMs [60.32717556756674]
  This paper introduces a systematic evaluation framework to assess Large Language Models in detecting cryptographic misuses. Our in-depth analysis of 11,940 LLM-generated reports highlights that the inherent instabilities in LLMs can lead to over half of the reports being false positives. The optimized approach achieves a remarkable detection rate of nearly 90%, surpassing traditional methods and uncovering previously unknown misuses in established benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-23T15:31:26Z)
• What's Wrong with Your Code Generated by Large Language Models? An Extensive Study [92.62952504133926]
  This study evaluated the performance of three leading closed-source LLMs and six popular open-source LLMs on three commonly used benchmarks.<n>We developed a taxonomy of bugs for incorrect codes and analyzed the root cause for common bug types.<n>We propose a novel training-free iterative method that introduces self-critique, enabling LLMs to critique and correct their generated code.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-08T17:27:17Z)
• 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)
• Assessing the Reliability of Large Language Model Knowledge [78.38870272050106]
  Large language models (LLMs) have been treated as knowledge bases due to their strong performance in knowledge probing tasks. How do we evaluate the capabilities of LLMs to consistently produce factually correct answers? We propose MOdel kNowledge relIabiliTy scORe (MONITOR), a novel metric designed to directly measure LLMs' factual reliability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-15T12:40:30Z)
• 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.