mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

IntentCoding: Amplifying User Intent in Code Generation

arXiv 2602.00066 ↗First posted 20 Jan 2026cs.SE cs.AI cs.CLcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown strong capabilities in code generation, but their adherence to fine-grained user intent with multiple constraints remains a significant challenge. Our empirical analysis reveals two key observations: 1) Model performance deteriorates quickly as the number of constraints in the user intent increases, and 2) While user intent does influence the model's logits, such an influence may not be strong enough to effectively steer the decoding process. To this end, we propose Intent-Amplified Code Generation (IntentCoding), a novel decoding strategy that enhances an LLM's ability to follow user intent. IntentCoding captures the influence of user intent by masking out the intent, and applies a multi-strength ensemble mechanism to amplify the effect of user intent during generation. IntentCoding is model-agnostic, requires no additional training, and integrates seamlessly with existing decoding procedures. To enable systematic evaluation, we also construct CodeConstraints, a benchmark dataset specifically designed to test user intent compliance under varying numbers of constraints. Experiments on our constructed Constraints, as well as popular IFEvalCode, HumanEval and LiveCodeBench datasets, show that our IntentCoding model significantly improves both constraint satisfaction and functional correctness compared to standard decoding approaches. IntentCoding achieves up to 71.0% relative improvement on CodeConstraints, achieves up to 67.3% relative improvement on IFEvalCode and achieves up to 29.3% relative improvement in pass@1 on HumanEval and LiveCodeBench compared with greedy decoding.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 24 of its 30 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 20 Jan 2026.

Builds on

24 of 30 references.

References · 24

  1. 2023Llama 2: Open Foundation and Fine-Tuned Chat Modelscited by 13,028
  2. 2021Evaluating Large Language Models Trained on Codecited by 8,320
  3. 2021Program Synthesis with Large Language Modelscited by 3,637
  4. 2019The Curious Case of Neural Text Degenerationcited by 2,916
  5. 2024LiveCodeBench: Holistic and Contamination Free Evaluation of Large Language Models for Codecited by 2,004
  6. 2022Competition-Level Code Generation with AlphaCodecited by 1,462
  7. 2018Hierarchical Neural Story Generationcited by 1,193
  8. 2024DeepSeek-Coder: When the Large Language Model Meets Programming -- The Rise of Code Intelligencecited by 1,181
  9. 2023Teaching Large Language Models to Self-Debugcited by 988
  10. 2021Measuring Coding Challenge Competence With APPScited by 902
  11. 2023StarCoder: may the source be with you!cited by 799
  12. 2024A Survey on Large Language Models for Code Generationcited by 658
12 more
  1. 2022Contrastive Decoding: Open-ended Text Generation as Optimizationcited by 609
  2. 2023Self-collaboration Code Generation via ChatGPTcited by 258
  3. 2017Beam Search Strategies for Neural Machine Translationcited by 232
  4. 2020IntelliCode Compose: Code Generation Using Transformercited by 227
  5. 2023Planning with Large Language Models for Code Generationcited by 182
  6. 2024A Thorough Examination of Decoding Methods in the Era of LLMscited by 114
  7. 2023Self-Edit: Fault-Aware Code Editor for Code Generationcited by 111
  8. 2019Comparison of Diverse Decoding Methods from Conditional Language Modelscited by 78
  9. 2024MHPP: Exploring the Capabilities and Limitations of Language Models Beyond Basic Code Generationcited by 26
  10. 2023Instructive Decoding: Instruction-Tuned Large Language Models are Self-Refiner from Noisy Instructionscited by 24
  11. 2024Selective Prompt Anchoring for Code Generationcited by 16
  12. 2024The Fault in our Stars: Quality Assessment of Code Generation Benchmarkscited by 9

Built on by

Not cited yet.