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

Large Language Models (LLMs) often generate natural-language comments while writing code, and these comments become part of the context used to generate the code that follows. However, it remains unclear which properties of comments affect code-generation performance. We study this question through observational analyses and controlled interventions. On LiveCodeBench, neither comment frequency nor broad comment intent reliably predicts pass@1. We then prefill weaker recipient models with comment blocks written by stronger source models, allowing us to separate comment surface form from the solution content they convey. Comments from source solutions that pass the tests raise recipient pass@1 by 17.2% on average. In contrast, comments describing failed solutions provide no reliable gain, while comments written for a different problem reduce pass@1 by 20.8%. Finally, across a wide range of models and prompt variants, most recipient models show no significant recovery of the external-comment gain, and the best case recovers only 24%. These results show that comments help code generation not merely because they are comments, but because they can provide correct solution content that prompting cannot reliably elicit.

Large language models (LLMs) generate code from natural-language prompts, yet real-world prompts rarely provide complete specifications. When prompts leave input formats, error handling, or design decisions unspecified, LLMs fill these gaps with implicit assumptions that shape the generated code's behavior and correctness. Because these assumptions remain hidden, generated code may satisfy tests while violating developer intent. We present AssumptionMiner, a framework that makes implicit assumptions a first-class artifact of LLM-based code generation. In addition to code, AssumptionMiner produces an explicit assumption layer, a structured representation of inferred constraints and design decisions that developers can inspect, confirm, or revise. An AST-based dependency graph enables targeted regeneration of only the code affected by a revised assumption. We also introduce a benchmark of 180 ambiguous programming tasks with 676 annotated assumptions, including a human-verified subset for evaluating code localization. We evaluate assumption extraction, code localization, and assumption-guided regeneration. Across open-source LLMs, a confidence-weighted ensemble achieves an F1 score of 0.816 for assumption extraction, improving on the strongest offline baseline by 3.6x. On the human-verified localization benchmark, AST-guided localization identifies more precise code regions than keyword-based and whole-file baselines. During assumption revision, targeted regeneration modifies less code than non-targeted alternatives while exposing challenges in handling cascading edits. These results demonstrate that making assumptions explicit improves the transparency and controllability of LLM-based code generation.

Code generation models are typically compared using compact execution benchmarks and aggregate pass rates, but such summaries obscure how performance varies across programming languages, problem families, and failure modes. We present a large-scale, execution-grounded evaluation of 9 openly accessible LLMs specialized for coding on 2,707 free LeetCode problems across 12 programming languages. Our corpus contains 325,343 problem-model-language jobs, each linked to prompt metadata, extracted code, LeetCode execution outcomes, and static-analysis signals. The results show that current open models remain far from the human acceptance reference: the best model, Yi-Coder-9B-Chat, reaches 23.64% mean correctness, compared with a 57.2% human acceptance baseline. Rankings are also slice-dependent: Qwen2.5-Coder-14B-Instruct is strongest on hard problems and distinct-problem coverage, while Gemma-2-27B-IT achieves the highest all-language lint pass rate. Failure analysis shows that compile errors account for 63.25% of non-accepted best submissions, indicating that many failures occur before semantic correctness can be tested. Static quality further diverges from functional correctness. Together, these findings show that multilingual, artifact-preserving evaluation reveals tradeoffs hidden by single-language or single-metric leaderboards.