Vibe coding democratizes software development by allowing users to generate code via natural-language (NL) interaction with large language models (LLMs). However, the code is reliable only when it faithfully implements the user's intent, which is difficult and labor-intensive for users to validate. Existing validation methods either rely on LLM-assisted automated testing, which suffers from prompt ambiguity and model fallibility, or involve users only in partial software artifacts such as prompts and test cases, which may overlook corner cases and program details. Motivated by a bug study of LLM-generated code, we find that detailed human feedback is essential, as failures often stem from underspecified requirements or subtle semantic deviations. This paper presents verifiable literate programming (VLP), a human-in-the-loop framework designed to make the review/validation process of LLM-generated code accessible to users at all programming levels. At its core, VLP proposes unambiguous NL-based documentation as a readable intermediate layer between prompts and code. The documentation demonstrates concrete program semantics and enables users to provide feedback on potential intent-code mismatches. It supports human-involved, end-to-end repair and validation via three techniques: (i) an NL-style literate language with unambiguous syntax and mostly deterministic code-to-documentation translation, (ii) LLM-based fine-grained mismatch detection that uses trace links between prompts and documentation to focus users'review effort on suspicious documentation lines, and (iii) a verification module that leverages user-validated documentation to derive API-usage checks and formal properties, which are then verified against the generated code using model checking. Our evaluation shows that VLP improves code pass@1 from 28.7%-73.2% to 65.4%-93.5% with reasonable user effort.
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.
This tutorial introduces a reusable, end-to-end evaluation pipeline grounded in empirical software engineering practices, focusing on post-generation validation rather than prompt design, allowing for validating AI-generated code in modern development workflows.
It is observed that generated code often omits basic input validation or memory-safety checks, which can lead to overflows, resource exhaustion, or other reliability/security issues, and even the largest models frequently make simple mistakes.
Rodrigo Pato Nogueira, Marco Vieira, João R. Campos· 0 citations
A test-driven pipeline is presented that extracts functional requirements (FR) from a problem description, resolves dependencies, maps them into a modular Model-View-Controller (MVC) structure, and generates tests before code, followed by bounded, execution-driven refinement.
Wasay Mohammed Abdul, Ragib Shahariar Ayon, Shibbir Ahmed et al.· SIGSOFT FSE Companion· 0 citations
The integration of Large Language Models (LLMs) into software engineering has shifted the focus from function-level generation to repository-scale assistance. However, existing benchmarks largely rely on bug reports from GitHub Issues, which often allow models to bypass genuine understanding via pattern matching on error logs. This misalignment under-measures Edit Bias, which refers to premature generation, where models prematurely propose code modifications instead of understanding the existing repository architecture. Furthermore, current LLM-as-a-Judge scalar scoring suffers from high variance and low interpretability. This work introduces RepoProbe, a novel benchmark for evaluating repository-level code understanding through open-ended Q&A using GitHub Discussions, which focuses on open-ended architectural inquiries rather than defect reporting. To ensure rigorous evaluation, we propose a Checklist-Based Verification Protocol that decomposes answers into atomic, verifiable facts, thereby replacing subjective ratings with objective verification. Our evaluation of state-of-the-art (SOTA) LLMs reveals a persistent gap between high clarity and evidencegrounded technical correctness. It also quantitatively confirms the prevalence of edit bias, in which models prioritize code generation instead of architectural analysis. Finally, we demonstrate that our verification protocol significantly improves evaluation reliability compared to traditional evaluations with scalar scoring.
