Skip to content
Preprint

DevIntent: How Much Does LLM-Generated Code Violate Developer Intent?

Aug 2026 · 0 citations · 10 references
Computer Science

TL;DR

The Intent Violation Rate (IVR) is introduced and a 49-problem pilot benchmark derived from HumanEval+.

Abstract

Code generated by LLMs can violate a developer's implicit intentions when given an ambiguous prompt, yet standard benchmarks measure only whether code passes its stated test. We introduce the Intent Violation Rate (IVR) and a 49-problem pilot benchmark derived from HumanEval+. Each problem strips implicit constraints from a clarified prompt and encodes them as hidden constraint tests. IVR measures the fraction of LLM-generated solutions that pass the stated (visible) tests yet fail hidden constraint tests that capture unstated intent. Evaluating Claude Sonnet 4.6 and OpenAI GPT 4.1, we find both pass over 92\% of stated tests yet violate intent in over half of problems (54.5\% and 63.5\%), following a systematic, bimodal pattern consistent across both models. Out findings indicate that pass rates overstate how well generated code reflects developer intent.

View source

Similar papers

Preprint Jul 2026

Do Code Language Models Follow Tests? Paired Interventions on Program Behavior

This work studies test utilization through matched prompting controls, paired semantic interventions, and test suites selected by fault detection to make test-specified rule changes measurable alongside implementation capability and benchmark correctness.

Yun-Hao Liang, Cheng-Guang Gan, Rui-Xuan Ying et al. · 1 citation
Preprint Aug 2026

Documentation vs. Code Patterns: What Drives LLM-Based Exception Oracle Generation?

Future TOG systems should be evaluated not only by whether they predict the correct oracle type, but also by whether their predictions are grounded in meaningful exception-triggering evidence, to challenge the assumption that strong exception-oracle accuracy reflects robust use of exception semantics.

Soneya Binta Hossain, Matthew B. Dwyer, Tasfia Tasnim · 0 citations
Jul 2026

Evaluating and Mitigating the Misguidance Effect of Buggy Code in LLM-Generated Unit Tests

A specification-based unit test generation paradigm that replaces the code under test in the prompt with an LLM-generated specification docstring is introduced, showing that this paradigm effectively reduces misguided tests while substantially increasing effective tests, improves multi-round, feedback-driven test generation pipelines, and remains applicable to both buggy and bug-free code.

Junda Zhao, Shurui Zhou, Eldan Cohen · 0 citations
#human-computer interacti... Preprint Aug 2026

FlowCheck: Helping End-Users Specify and Verify Intent in Vibe-Coded Web Apps

FlowCheck, a constraint language to specify user-visible information flows directly through the application interface, where constraints can also be displayed and inspected without reading code, and are structured enough for reliable LLM generation.

Reya Vir, Lydia B. Chilton, Zhuo Zhang et al. · 0 citations
Open access Aug 2026

How well do LLMs understand code?

SemBench is introduced, a novel benchmark consisting of 1000 diverse C programs sourced from the CodeParrot GitHub-code dataset, with 15,404 semantic questions spanning six basic but fundamental properties: dead code-statement, data dependency, function reachability, dominator, dead code-loop, and liveness.

Jade Xu, Ren-Liang Sun, Zijian Ding et al. · 0 citations

We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads. See our Cookie Policy.