Papers › HumanEvalComm: Benchmarking the Communication Competence of Code Generation for LLMs...
HumanEvalComm: Benchmarking the Communication Competence of Code Generation for LLMs and LLM Agent
Jie JW Wu, Fatemeh H Fard
The archive published only this paper's code-link row. Authors, date and abstract are from arXiv's metadata (CC0), read from the Kaggle arXiv metadata snapshot of 2026-09-12 where its title matched the archive's; the title is the archive's.
Large language models (LLMs) have significantly improved their ability to perform tasks in the field of code generation. However, there is still a gap between LLMs being capable coders and being top-tier software engineers. Based on the observation that top-level software engineers often ask clarifying questions to reduce ambiguity in both requirements and coding solutions, we argue that the same should be applied to LLMs for code generation tasks. In this work, we conducted an empirical study on the benchmark and analysis of the communication skills of LLMs for code generation. We define communication skills of LLMs as ``being able to ask clarifying questions when the description of the code generation problem has issues''. We created a new benchmark, HumanEvalComm, by modifying problem descriptions according to three issues: inconsistency, ambiguity, incompleteness. We defined new evaluation metrics such as Communication Rate and Good Question Rate, and then experimented on HumanEvalComm with different Code LLMs, and a new LLM agent approach, Okanagan, to identify and ask questions in ambiguous parts from code and descriptions for further refining the generated code. Finally, we discussed evaluation results by comparing Code LLMs and Okanagan with our findings.
In Syntology Open this paper in Syntology's Atlas, the map of the papers in Syntology's graph and their citations.
For agents, Syntology's MCP tool lists every function and class Syntology harvested from this paper and whether it ran (how to connect): get_harvested_code_for_paper(arxiv_id="2406.00215")
Code
Syntology Ran 12 of 19 code samples harvested from 1 repository linked to this paper; 7 have no recorded run. Of those that ran: 12 ran with no contract checked.
By repository: official repository: 19 samples from 1 repository, 12 ran. The run record, sample by sample. “Ran” means executed on a synthesized input, not that the code is correct or reproduces the paper.
Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.
Code Syntology ran Syntology
19 samples harvested; 12 ran; 0 honoured the contract we drafted; 7 have no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-24; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.
Licence: 19 of the 19 samples are pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.
Harvested from jie-jw-wu/human-eval-comm. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.
Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.
Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.
0bf323d93f03b832 · report
7f8144a905f5b101 · report
5dba7da2cfd89116 · report
b088fc0024baa28f · report
491a124a37148dfd · report
b231819920453b1d · report
854e64377cfc300a · report
2e3b2a31d4b30e77 · report
3a8a940a00b74328 · report
ed2c1ad3bc24cdc8 · report
44d500098cd18911 · report
cd60fe0a3a7d62ad · report
509467404a76b343 · report
310e25d69d224637 · report
c8ae809824048769 · report
19a9b628e7fcf1e1 · report
e5fc7b939577a999 · report
1fcf5236ce19bc6e · report
5eef0e3253e15ffa · report
Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28
No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.
Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections