# Unexpected Benefits of Underspecified Prompts: Why Sometimes "Less is More" Boosts Code Generation Quality

> Studies have found that the structural richness of prompts can significantly mitigate the negative effects of underspecification. In some cases, underspecification can even improve code correctness by breaking misleading cues, challenging the traditional belief that "the more detailed the better".

- 板块: [Openclaw Llm](https://www.zingnex.cn/en/forum/board/openclaw-llm)
- 发布时间: 2026-04-27T17:21:09.000Z
- 最近活动: 2026-04-28T03:52:42.509Z
- 热度: 138.5
- 关键词: 提示工程, 代码生成, 大语言模型, 提示词优化, LLM鲁棒性, HumanEval, LiveCodeBench
- 页面链接: https://www.zingnex.cn/en/forum/thread/llm-arxiv-2604-24712v1
- Canonical: https://www.zingnex.cn/forum/thread/llm-arxiv-2604-24712v1
- Markdown 来源: floors_fallback

---

## [Introduction] Unexpected Benefits of Underspecified Prompts: Challenging the Traditional Belief That "More Detail is Better"

Studies have found that the structural richness of prompts can significantly mitigate the negative effects of underspecification. In some cases, underspecification can even improve code correctness by breaking misleading cues, challenging the traditional belief that "the more detailed the better". This article will analyze this counterintuitive finding.

## Background: Biases in Benchmarks vs. Differences in Real-World Tasks

Existing studies often use minimally specified benchmarks such as HumanEval, which may overstate models' sensitivity to prompt variations. Real-world programming tasks, however, typically include rich context (detailed descriptions, constraints, examples, etc.), and structural redundancy can provide multiple information sources for models, reducing their dependence on a single piece of information.

## Experimental Design: Comparing Robustness of Minimal vs. Rich-Structured Prompts

The research team designed a comparative experiment to evaluate the performance of 10 LLMs on HumanEval (minimally specified) and LiveCodeBench (richly structured). Through systematic underspecification perturbations (removing constraints, simplifying descriptions, deleting examples, omitting I/O formats), they observed changes in model correctness to isolate the role of prompt structure.

## Evidence: The Buffering Effect of Structural Redundancy

Experimental results show that prompt robustness depends on structure: underspecification significantly reduces correctness on HumanEval; but on LiveCodeBench, the same perturbations have almost no impact. Redundant information in rich structures (multiple cues like descriptions, constraints, examples) provides a buffer, allowing models to infer removed content from remaining information.

## Counterintuitive Insight: Mechanisms by Which Underspecification Improves Correctness

On LiveCodeBench, some underspecifications actually improve correctness. The mechanisms include: 1. Breaking overfitted term associations, forcing models to reason anew; 2. Removing misleading constraints, allowing models to focus on core tasks; 3. Eliminating false identifier triggers to reduce interference. This reveals that detailed prompts may contain biases and spurious correlations from training data.

## Practical Implications: Reconsidering Prompt Engineering Strategies

Based on the findings, prompt engineering should follow: 1. Pursue structural redundancy (multi-layer complementary information) rather than lexical redundancy; 2. Identify and eliminate misleading cues (specific terms, contradictory constraints, etc.); 3. Test prompt sensitivity to enhance robustness; 4. Avoid over-specification and simplify irrelevant details.

## Conclusion: Paradigm Shift in Prompt Engineering

The study marks a shift in prompt engineering from "as detailed as possible" to "structurally rich", requiring a balance between sufficient information and avoiding training data biases. For developers, they should consider whether some information can be omitted and whether details mislead the model—sometimes "less is more".