PreprintCited by 1Software Engineering ResearchSoftware Engineering Techniques and PracticesSoftware Testing and Debugging Techniques

Ambig-SWE: Interactive Agents to Overcome Underspecificity in Software Engineering

Open access
Vijayvargiya, Sanidhya, Zhou, Xuhui, Yerukola, Akhila, Sap, Maarten, Neubig, Graham·2025·arXiv

Abstract

AI agents are increasingly being deployed to automate tasks, often based on underspecified user instructions. Making unwarranted assumptions to compensate for the missing information and failing to ask clarifying questions can lead to suboptimal outcomes, safety risks due to tool misuse, and wasted computational resources. In this work, we study the ability of LLM agents to handle underspecified instructions in interactive code generation settings by evaluating proprietary and open-weight models on their performance across three key steps: (a) detecting underspecificity, (b) asking targeted clarification questions, and (c) leveraging the interaction to improve performance in underspecified scenarios. We introduce Ambig-SWE, an underspecified variant of SWE-Bench Verified, specifically designed to evaluate agent behavior under ambiguity and interaction. Our findings reveal that models struggle to distinguish between well-specified and underspecified instructions. However, when models interact for underspecified inputs, they effectively obtain vital information from the user leading to significant improvements in performance, up to 74% over the non-interactive settings, underscoring the value of effective interaction. Our study highlights critical gaps in how current state-of-the-art models handle missing information in complex software engineering tasks and structures the evaluation into distinct steps to enable targeted improvements.

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2502.13069

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Vijayvargiya et al. evaluated LLM agents for GitHub issue resolution in an underspecified setting, showing that follow-up interactions to supplement information helps improve the resolve rate.

    “Vijayvargiya et al. [78] evaluated LLM agents for GitHub issue resolution in an underspecified setting, showing that follow-up interactions to supplement information helps improve the resolve rate but detecting the ambiguities in the instructions remains a challenge.”

    From LLMs Get Lost In Multi-Turn Conversation (2025) · cites this paper as [78]

  • Vijayvargiya et al. found that detecting the ambiguities in the instructions remains a challenge.

    “Vijayvargiya et al. [78] evaluated LLM agents for GitHub issue resolution in an underspecified setting, showing that follow-up interactions to supplement information helps improve the resolve rate but detecting the ambiguities in the instructions remains a challenge.”

    From LLMs Get Lost In Multi-Turn Conversation (2025) · cites this paper as [78]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Vijayvargiya, S., Zhou, X., Yerukola, A., Sap, M., & Neubig, G.
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2025
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4407759984
Cited by
0
References
1
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Research
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Techniques and Practices
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Software › Software Testing and Debugging Techniques
Keywords
LLM agents, clarification questions, ambiguity detection, SWE-bench Verified, open-weight language models, software engineering tasks, agent evaluation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review