# ClarifyCodeBench: Evaluating LLMs on Clarifying Ambiguous Requirements for Code Generation

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.00711 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2607.00711/

## Key facts

- Cited by 5 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 16 of its 40 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 1 Jul 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 16 of 16)

- [Qwen3 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.09388/) (2025)
- [Evaluating Large Language Models Trained on Code](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2107.03374/) (2021)
- [DeepSeek-R1: Incentivizing Reasoning Capability in LLMs via Reinforcement Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.12948/) (2025)
- [GPT-4o System Card](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.21276/) (2024)
- [Gemini 2.5: Pushing the Frontier with Advanced Reasoning, Multimodality, Long Context, and Next Generation Agentic Capabilities](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.06261/) (2025)
- [Program Synthesis with Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2108.07732/) (2021)
- [LiveCodeBench: Holistic and Contamination Free Evaluation of Large Language Models for Code](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.07974/) (2024)
- [OpenAI GPT-5 System Card](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.03267/) (2025)
- [Measuring Coding Challenge Competence With APPS](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2105.09938/) (2021)
- [DeepSeek-V3.2: Pushing the Frontier of Open Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2512.02556/) (2025)
- [LLMs Get Lost In Multi-Turn Conversation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.06120/) (2025)
- [Ambig-SWE: Interactive Agents to Overcome Underspecificity in Software Engineering](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.13069/) (2025)
- [CodeFlowBench: A Multi-turn, Iterative Benchmark for Complex Code Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.21751/) (2025)
- [CodeIF-Bench: Evaluating Instruction-Following Capabilities of Large Language Models in Interactive Code Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.22688/) (2025)
- [ConvCodeWorld: Benchmarking Conversational Code Generation in Reproducible Feedback Environments](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.19852/) (2025)
- [When Prompts Go Wrong: Evaluating Code Model Robustness to Ambiguous, Contradictory, and Incomplete Task Descriptions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.20439/) (2025)

## Built on by (most cited first, 5 of 5)

- [Fewer Clarifications, Better Code: Benchmarking Cross-Session Personalized Ambiguity Adaptation in Coding Assistants](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2607.26611/) (2026)
- [IdeaAMBIG: Benchmarking Implementation-Critical Gaps in Research-Idea Specifications](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.10539/) (2026)
- [CONTRA: Discovering and Qualifying Behavior-Changing Questions for Selective Clarification in LLM Code Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2610.01769/) (2026)
- [Don't Guess, Just Ask: Evaluating Interactive Requirement Clarification for Repository-Level Software Development](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2610.13022/) (2026)
- [Instructions Are Evidence, Not Objectives: Measuring Outcome Alignment of Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2610.17757/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Large Language Models have emerged as programming assistants. However, the efficacy of code generation is constrained by the quality of input requirements, which are frequently ambiguous, incomplete, or underspecified. While LLMs excel at one-shot code synthesis, their ability to proactively clarify intent remains underexplored, as a critical trait for robust software engineering. Existing benchmarks largely overlook this interactive bottleneck, assuming perfectly specified prompts that do not reflect the iterative nature of requirement elicitation. To bridge this gap, we introduce ClarifyCodeBench, a novel interactive benchmark for evaluating LLMs' capability in resolving requirement ambiguity. Constructed from real-world programming tasks, ClarifyCodeBench features high-quality manual annotations, including N unique ambiguity types, associated clarification questions, and corresponding ground-truth answers. Furthermore, we formalize two rigorous metrics to assess the interaction quality: Turn-discounted Key Question Rate, which penalizes inefficient questioning, and Optimal Round Adherence, which measures the precision of the elicitation process. We conduct a systematic evaluation of six state-of-the-art LLMs using ClarifyCodeBench. Our empirical results yield three critical insights: 1) Capability Decoupling: Strong code generation performance does not inherently translate to effective requirement clarification; 2) The Reasoning Paradox: While increased computational thinking enhances code correctness, it yields marginal gains in identifying ambiguities; 3) The Multi-ambiguity Ceiling: LLMs' clarification performance degrades sharply as the density of ambiguities increases, revealing a significant bottleneck in handling complex, real-world specifications. Our work underscores the necessity for future AI4SE research to transition from static synthesis to interactive elicitation.