When Prompt Under-Specification Improves Code Correctness: An Exploratory Study of Prompt Wording and Structure Effects on LLM-Based Code Generation

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2604.24712v1
• Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2026 17:21:09 GMT
• Title: When Prompt Under-Specification Improves Code Correctness: An Exploratory Study of Prompt Wording and Structure Effects on LLM-Based Code Generation
• Abstract summary: We investigate how prompt structure, task complexity, and specification richness interact with robustness to prompt mutations.<n>Our results reveal that robustness is not a fixed property of LLMs but is highly dependent on prompt structure.<n>Surprisingly, we also find that prompt mutations can improve correctness.
• Score: 21.26459132144385
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Large language models are increasingly used for code generation, yet the correctness of their outputs depends not only on model capability but also on how tasks are specified. Prior studies demonstrate that small changes in natural language prompts, particularly under-specification can substantially reduce code correctness; however, these findings are largely based on minimal-specification benchmarks such as HumanEval and MBPP, where limited structural redundancy may exaggerate sensitivity. In this exploratory study, we investigate how prompt structure, task complexity, and specification richness interact with LLM robustness to prompt mutations. We evaluate 10 different models across HumanEval and the structurally richer LiveCodeBench. Our results reveal that robustness is not a fixed property of LLMs but is highly dependent on prompt structure: the same under-specification mutations that degrade performance on HumanEval have near-zero net effect on LiveCodeBench due to redundancy across descriptions, constraints, examples, and I/O conventions. Surprisingly, we also find that prompt mutations can improve correctness. In LiveCodeBench, under-specification often breaks misleading lexical or structural cues that trigger incorrect retrieval-based solution strategies, leading to correctness improvements that counterbalance degradations. Manual analysis identifies consistent mechanisms behind these improvements, including the disruption of over-fitted terminology, removal of misleading constraints, and elimination of spurious identifier triggers. Overall, our study shows that structurally rich task descriptions can substantially mitigate the negative effects of under-specification and, in some cases, even enhance correctness. We outline categories of prompt modifications that positively influence the behavior of LLM code-generation, offering practical insights for writing robust prompts.

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)
• How LLMs Fail and Generalize in RTL Coding for Hardware Design? [56.361436215029045]
  We introduce a new error taxonomy grounded in problem solvability, inspired by cognitive theory.<n>Our taxonomy categorizes failures into syntactic, semantic, solvable functional, and unsolvable functional types.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-26T14:34:49Z)
• From Early Encoding to Late Suppression: Interpreting LLMs on Character Counting Tasks [49.57538588967748]
  Large language models (LLMs) exhibit failures on elementary symbolic tasks such as character counting in a word, despite excelling on complex benchmarks.<n>We uncover a consistent phenomenon across modern architectures, including LLaMA, Qwen, and Gemma.<n>We show that symbolic reasoning failures in LLMs are not due to missing representations or insufficient scale, but arise from structured interference within the model's computation graph.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-01T11:40:12Z)
• Task-Awareness Improves LLM Generations and Uncertainty [48.857040212979484]
  Bayes-optimal responses consistently outperform standard decoding methods like beam search.<n>Our decision-theoretic framework is applicable to any problem that admits a latent response structure.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-29T10:16:23Z)
• Are We Evaluating the Edit Locality of LLM Model Editing Properly? [68.441768731381]
  We find that existing specificity evaluation protocols are inadequate for this purpose.<n>Existing specificity metrics are weakly correlated with the strength of specificity regularizers.<n>We also find that current metrics lack sufficient sensitivity, rendering them ineffective at distinguishing the specificity performance of different methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-24T07:07:21Z)
• Understanding and Mitigating Errors of LLM-Generated RTL Code [7.747889860813149]
  Large language model (LLM) based register-transfer-level (RTL) code generation is promising but the overall success rate remains unsatisfactory.<n>We conduct a comprehensive error analysis and manual categorization.<n>Our findings reveal that most errors stem from insufficient RTL programming knowledge, poor understanding of circuit concepts, or misinterpretation of complex multimodal inputs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-07T11:02:32Z)
• When Prompts Go Wrong: Evaluating Code Model Robustness to Ambiguous, Contradictory, and Incomplete Task Descriptions [23.5858385520752]
  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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-27T23:16:14Z)
• Improving Code LLM Robustness to Prompt Perturbations via Layer-Aware Model Editing [13.099973383252452]
  Large language models (LLMs) are highly sensitive to prompt perturbations.<n>We introduce CREME, a novel approach that enhances LLM robustness through targeted parameter updates.<n> Experimental results show that CREME improves Pass@1 accuracy by 63% on perturbed prompts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-22T09:57:55Z)
• Model Hemorrhage and the Robustness Limits of Large Language Models [119.46442117681147]
  Large language models (LLMs) demonstrate strong performance across natural language processing tasks, yet undergo significant performance degradation when modified for deployment.<n>We define this phenomenon as model hemorrhage - performance decline caused by parameter alterations and architectural changes.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-31T10:16:03Z)
• 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)
• Understanding Defects in Generated Codes by Language Models [0.669087470775851]
  This study categorizes and analyzes 367 identified defects from code snippets generated by Large Language Models. Error categories indicate key areas where LLMs frequently fail, underscoring the need for targeted improvements. This paper implemented five prompt engineering techniques, including Scratchpad Prompting, Program of Thoughts Prompting, Chain-of-Thought Prompting, Chain-of-Thought Prompting, and Structured Chain-of-Thought Prompting.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-23T21:10:09Z)
• Diagnosing and Rectifying Fake OOD Invariance: A Restructured Causal Approach [51.012396632595554]
  Invariant representation learning (IRL) encourages the prediction from invariant causal features to labels de-confounded from the environments. Recent theoretical results verified that some causal features recovered by IRLs merely pretend domain-invariantly in the training environments but fail in unseen domains. We develop an approach based on conditional mutual information with respect to RS-SCM, then rigorously rectify the spurious and fake invariant effects.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-15T12:58:05Z)

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.