DevIntent: How Much Does LLM-Generated Code Violate Developer Intent?
Source
Susana Haing, Natan Vidra, Spurthi Setty
Author
Susana Haing, Natan Vidra, Spurthi Setty
Published
Terms in this piece · Glossary
benchmark — A standard public test set for comparing AI models — the shared scoreboards behind every "model X beats model Y" claim.
LLM — A large language model — the neural network behind tools like Claude and ChatGPT, trained on huge amounts of text to predict what comes next.
Why it matters
It quantifies something every team using coding agents feels but does not measure: green tests are a weak proxy for the code doing what you actually meant.
Transcript
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.
articleHow well LLM-based test generation techniques perform with newer LLM versions?Michael Konstantinou, Renzo Degiovanni, Mike Papadakis
articleWhat do LLMs think when you don't tell them what to think about?Together AI
articleHow Reasoning Shapes Social Bias in LLM-Generated Code?Weifeng Sun, Jieke Shi, Zhou Yang, Yuchen Chen, Hongyan Li, Meng Yan, David Lo