Assessing the Impact of Requirement Ambiguity on LLM-based Function-Level Code Generation

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2604.21505v1
• Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2026 10:07:33 GMT
• Title: Assessing the Impact of Requirement Ambiguity on LLM-based Function-Level Code Generation
• Abstract summary: We introduce Orchid, the first code generation benchmark specifically designed with ambiguous requirements.<n>It comprises 1,304 function-level tasks covering four distinct types of ambiguity: lexical, syntactic, semantic, and vagueness.<n>Our results demonstrate that ambiguity consistently degrades the performance of all evaluated LLMs, with the most pronounced negative effects observed in highly advanced models.
• Score: 14.755517753769837
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Software requirement ambiguity is ubiquitous in real-world development, stemming from the inherent imprecision of natural language and the varying interpretations of stakeholders. While Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive capabilities in generating code from precise specifications, such ambiguity poses a significant obstacle to reliable automated code generation. Existing benchmarks typically assume clear and unambiguous requirements, leaving an empirical gap in understanding how LLMs behave when faced with the inherent uncertainty of real-world software requirements. In this paper, we introduce Orchid, the first code generation benchmark specifically designed with ambiguous requirements. It comprises 1,304 function-level tasks covering four distinct types of ambiguity: lexical, syntactic, semantic, and vagueness. Leveraging this dataset, we conduct the first systematic empirical study to evaluate the impact of requirement ambiguity on LLM-based code generation. Our results demonstrate that ambiguity consistently degrades the performance of all evaluated LLMs, with the most pronounced negative effects observed in highly advanced models. Furthermore, we observe that LLMs frequently produce functionally divergent implementations for the same ambiguous requirement and lack the capability to identify or resolve such ambiguity autonomously. These findings reveal a significant performance gap between clear and ambiguous requirements, underscoring the urgent need for ambiguity-aware techniques in the next generation of automated software engineering tools. The Orchid benchmark is publicly available at https://huggingface.co/datasets/SII-YDD/Orchid.

Related papers

• ClarifyCodeBench: Evaluating LLMs on Clarifying Ambiguous Requirements for Code Generation [54.788849448970154]
  We introduce ClarifyCodeBench, a novel interactive benchmark for evaluating Large Language Models' capability in resolving requirement ambiguity.<n>We conduct a systematic evaluation of six state-of-the-art LLMs using ClarifyCodeBench.<n>Our empirical results yield three critical insights: 1) Capability Decoupling: Strong code generation performance does not inherently translate to effective requirement clarification; 2) The Reasoning Paradox: While increased computational thinking enhances code correctness, it yields marginal gains in identifying ambiguities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-01T09:58:59Z)
• LLM-Based Static Verification of Code Against Natural-Language Requirements: An Industrial Experience Report [3.5867640049033054]
  This article presents a two-stage LLM-based workflow for addressing this challenge in an intelligent-vehicle cybersecurity case study.<n>In the first stage, an AI-based rule miner extracts verifiable rules from natural-language requirements.<n>In the second stage, an AI-based code auditor checks implementation evidence against the extracted rules.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-18T06:34:03Z)
• A2RBench: An Automatic Paradigm for Formally Verifiable Abstract Reasoning Benchmark Generation [59.98516959731531]
  Abstract reasoning ability reflects intelligence and capacity of LLMs to extract and apply abstract rules.<n>Existing benchmarks either rely on expensive manual annotation, limiting their scale, or risk measuring memorization rather than genuine reasoning.<n>We introduce an automated pipeline named A2RBench, encompassing generation, expansion, evaluation, and analysis.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-17T06:14:20Z)
• METER: Evaluating Multi-Level Contextual Causal Reasoning in Large Language Models [61.33372454250959]
  Contextual causal reasoning is a critical yet challenging capability for Large Language Models.<n>Existing benchmarks fail to ensure context consistency or cover the full causal hierarchy.<n>We pioneer METER to systematically benchmark LLMs across all three levels of the causal ladder.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-13T14:07:11Z)
• Evaluating the Formal Reasoning Capabilities of Large Language Models through Chomsky Hierarchy [62.32144504442516]
  It is unknown whether SOTA LLMs can grasp the structured, hierarchical complexity of formal languages.<n>ChomskyBench is a benchmark for systematically evaluating LLMs through the lens of Chomsky Hierarchy.<n>ChomskyBench is composed of a comprehensive suite of language recognition and generation tasks designed to test capabilities at each level.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-03T04:06:39Z)
• Bridging Natural Language and Formal Specification--Automated Translation of Software Requirements to LTL via Hierarchical Semantics Decomposition Using LLMs [10.958536923155101]
  Req2LTL is a modular framework that bridges NL and Linear Temporal Logic.<n>It achieves 88.4% semantic accuracy and 100% syntactic correctness on real-world aerospace requirements.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-19T08:25:54Z)
• Visualizing token importance for black-box language models [48.747801442240565]
  We consider the problem of auditing black-box large language models (LLMs) to ensure they behave reliably when deployed in production settings.<n>We propose Distribution-Based Sensitivity Analysis (DBSA) to evaluate the sensitivity of the output of a language model for each input token.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-12T14:01:43Z)
• A Controllable Examination for Long-Context Language Models [62.845852724511964]
  This study introduces $textbfLongBioBench, a benchmark for evaluating long-context language models.<n>We show that most models still exhibit deficiencies in semantic understanding and elementary reasoning over retrieved results.<n>Our further analysis indicates some design choices employed by existing synthetic benchmarks, such as contextual non-coherence.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-03T14:23:06Z)
• Automated Repair of Ambiguous Problem Descriptions for LLM-Based Code Generation [9.943472604121425]
  ambiguity of natural language (NL) can harm software quality.<n>We introduce an automated repair of ambiguous NL descriptions.<n>We implement this approach in a tool called SpecFix.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-12T06:47:53Z)
• Can Code Language Models Learn Clarification-Seeking Behaviors? [4.788534218705066]
  We present ClarifyCoder, a framework with synthetic data generation and instruction-tuning.<n>We show that ClarifyCoder achieves a 63% communication rate and a 52% good question rate on ambiguous tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-23T00:34:39Z)
• Aligning Language Models to Explicitly Handle Ambiguity [22.078095273053506]
  We propose Alignment with Perceived Ambiguity (APA), a novel pipeline that aligns language models to deal with ambiguous queries. Experimental results on question-answering datasets demonstrate that APA empowers LLMs to explicitly detect and manage ambiguous queries. Our finding proves that APA excels beyond training with gold-standard labels, especially in out-of-distribution scenarios.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-18T07:59:53Z)
• FAC$^2$E: Better Understanding Large Language Model Capabilities by Dissociating Language and Cognition [56.76951887823882]
  Large language models (LLMs) are primarily evaluated by overall performance on various text understanding and generation tasks. We present FAC$2$E, a framework for Fine-grAined and Cognition-grounded LLMs' Capability Evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-29T21:05:37Z)

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.