Large Language Models Have Unreliable Understanding of Software Engineering Terminology

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2607.06004v1
• Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2026 08:46:49 GMT
• Title: Large Language Models Have Unreliable Understanding of Software Engineering Terminology
• Abstract summary: Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used in software engineering (SE)<n>There is no systematic study that determines to which degree these LLMs actually understand standardized SE terminology.<n>Lack of such understanding can lead to miscommunication and misunderstanding.
• Score: 5.652196062649331
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used in software engineering (SE), yet there is no systematic study that determines to which degree these LLMs actually understand standardized SE terminology. Lack of such understanding can lead to miscommunication and misunderstanding, both by LLMs consuming text but also by human-developers acting on LLM-generated text. Within this paper, we investigate to which degree state-of-the-art LLMs are able to identify whether definitions from the ISO/IEC/IEEE 24765:2017 Systems and Software Engineering - Vocabulary are correct. We prompt LLMs both with correct definitions, as well as systematically falsified definitions. The falsifications are both semantic (substitution of key terms) and structural (removing critical information). We measure both classification accuracy and whether reasoning tokens generated by the LLMs make sense with respect to understanding the definition. While most LLMs detect falsified definitions with high accuracy, they also reject many correct definitions, indicating a systematic rejection bias rather than genuine discriminative understanding. Explicit reasoning does not consistently improve results and may even hinder performance through over-thinking. Our work demonstrates that while the performance of LLMs (including their agentic use) in many SE tasks is impressive, there are still fundamental issues to understand how this will impact SE, including the consistent use of terminology.

Related papers

• LLMs Explain't: A Post-Mortem on Semantic Interpretability in Transformer Models [3.7965260744113163]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are becoming increasingly popular in pervasive computing due to their versatility and strong performance.<n>This paper investigates how linguistic abstraction emerges in LLMs, aiming to detect it across different modules.<n> Attention-based explanations collapsed once we tested the core assumption that later-layer representations still correspond to tokens.<n>Property-inference methods applied to embeddings also failed because their high predictive scores were driven by methodological artifacts and dataset structure.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-30T12:46:37Z)
• Do LLMs Adhere to Label Definitions? Examining Their Receptivity to External Label Definitions [46.08795043966853]
  We conduct experiments across multiple explanation benchmark datasets (general and domain-specific)<n>Our results reveal that while explicit label definitions can enhance accuracy and explainability, their integration into an LLM's task-solving processes is neither guaranteed nor consistent.<n>These findings underscore the need for a deeper understanding of how LLMs process external knowledge alongside their pre-existing capabilities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-02T16:01:47Z)
• 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)
• How Accurately Do Large Language Models Understand Code? [4.817546726074033]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used in post-development tasks such as code repair and testing.<n> Quantifying code comprehension is challenging due to its abstract nature and the lack of a standardized metric.<n>This paper presents the first large-scale empirical investigation into LLMs' ability to understand code.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-06T05:59:29Z)
• Computation Mechanism Behind LLM Position Generalization [59.013857707250814]
  Large language models (LLMs) exhibit flexibility in handling textual positions.<n>They can understand texts with position perturbations and generalize to longer texts.<n>This work connects the linguistic phenomenon with LLMs' computational mechanisms.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-17T15:47:37Z)
• Disparities in LLM Reasoning Accuracy and Explanations: A Case Study on African American English [66.97110551643722]
  We investigate dialectal disparities in Large Language Models (LLMs) reasoning tasks.<n>We find that LLMs produce less accurate responses and simpler reasoning chains and explanations for AAE inputs.<n>These findings highlight systematic differences in how LLMs process and reason about different language varieties.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-06T05:15:34Z)
• Do LLMs Really Adapt to Domains? An Ontology Learning Perspective [2.0755366440393743]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated unprecedented prowess across various natural language processing tasks in various application domains. Recent studies show that LLMs can be leveraged to perform lexical semantic tasks, such as Knowledge Base Completion (KBC) or Ontology Learning (OL) This paper investigates the question: Do LLMs really adapt to domains and remain consistent in the extraction of structured knowledge, or do they only learn lexical senses instead of reasoning?
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-29T13:29:43Z)
• To Know or Not To Know? Analyzing Self-Consistency of Large Language Models under Ambiguity [27.10502683001428]
  This paper focuses on entity type ambiguity, analyzing the proficiency and consistency of state-of-the-art LLMs in applying factual knowledge when prompted with ambiguous entities. Experiments reveal that LLMs struggle with choosing the correct entity reading, achieving an average accuracy of only 85%, and as low as 75% with underspecified prompts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-24T09:48:48Z)
• Potential and Limitations of LLMs in Capturing Structured Semantics: A Case Study on SRL [78.80673954827773]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) play a crucial role in capturing structured semantics to enhance language understanding, improve interpretability, and reduce bias. We propose using Semantic Role Labeling (SRL) as a fundamental task to explore LLMs' ability to extract structured semantics. We find interesting potential: LLMs can indeed capture semantic structures, and scaling-up doesn't always mirror potential. We are surprised to discover that significant overlap in the errors is made by both LLMs and untrained humans, accounting for almost 30% of all errors.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-10T11:44:05Z)
• The Strong Pull of Prior Knowledge in Large Language Models and Its Impact on Emotion Recognition [74.04775677110179]
  In-context Learning (ICL) has emerged as a powerful paradigm for performing natural language tasks with Large Language Models (LLM) We show that LLMs have strong yet inconsistent priors in emotion recognition that ossify their predictions. Our results suggest that caution is needed when using ICL with larger LLMs for affect-centered tasks outside their pre-training domain.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-25T19:07:32Z)
• 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.