arXiv AI
ClarifyCodeBench: Evaluating LLMs on Clarifying Ambiguous Requirements for Code Generation
Read the original on arXiv AI →The Flow has not summarised this story yet — read it at arXiv AI.
Related stories
arXiv AI
Jun 9
Lost in the Flow with Code Talkers: Unveiling the Instruction-Tuning Tax of Large Language Models in Code Tasks
arXiv:2606. 08676v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: AI coding assistants have significantly improved developer productivity by automatically suggesting code that aligns with user intent, and many of these tools are now integrated directly into Integrated Development Environments (IDEs).
arXiv Computation and Language
Sep 22
CCTU: A Benchmark for Tool Use under Complex Constraints
CCTU is a new benchmark designed to evaluate large language models (LLMs) on their ability to use tools under complex constraints. It includes 200 test cases that average seven constraint types and 4,700‑token prompts, covering resource, behavior, toolset, and response dimensions. An executable validation module performs step‑level checks, and nine state‑of‑the‑art LLMs were tested, revealing that none exceed a 20% task completion rate when strict constraints are enforced, with frequent violations and limited self‑refinement.
Hugging Face Trending Papers
Jul 29
SpecFirst: Behavioral Specification Elicitation as a First-Class Step in Agent-Based Program Synthesis from Scratch
LLM-based agents excel at software engineering tasks where an existing codebase provides context, but constructing a program from scratch remains fundamentally harder. Recent benchmarks such as ProgramBench quantify this gap: given only natural-language documentation and an execute-only binary as a behavioral oracle, even frontier models solve fewer than 1% of instances.
arXiv Machine Learning
Aug 31
Beyond Output Correctness: Benchmarking and Evaluating Large Language Model Reasoning in Coding Tasks
The paper introduces CodeRQ-Bench, the first benchmark for assessing large language model reasoning quality across coding tasks such as generation, summarization, and classification. It analyzes over a thousand mismatches from existing evaluators, identifies recurring limitations, and derives design insights that lead to a new two‑stage evaluator, VERA. Experiments show VERA outperforms strong baselines, improving AUCROC by up to 0.26 and AUPRC by up to 0.21 on four datasets.
arXiv AI
5d ago
Code That Works, Environments That Don't: Measuring Environment Reproducibility in AI-Generated Software
The paper investigates how well large language models specify the software environments needed to run AI-generated code. Using a new agent protocol and a three‑layer dependency framework, the authors evaluate three coding agents across four languages and fifty tasks, finding that dependency specifications are often inconsistent, redundant, or incomplete. Agreement on dependency sets is as low as 7% for identical tasks, and newer agents show no improvement, indicating that environment specification remains a significant, unaddressed challenge in code generation.
arXiv Machine Learning
Jun 30
SWE-INTERACT: Reimagining SWE Benchmarks as User-Driven Long-Horizon Coding Sessions
arXiv:2606. 30573v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: We introduce SWE-Interact, a new testbed for evaluating coding agents on multi-turn, interactive, user-driven software engineering tasks.