Skip to content
← Back to explorer

Ask or Assume? Uncertainty-Aware Clarification-Seeking in Coding Agents

Nicholas Edwards, Sebastian Schuster · Mar 27, 2026 · Citations: 0

How to use this page

Low trust

Use this as background context only. Do not make protocol decisions from this page alone.

Best use

Background context only

What to verify

Validate the evaluation procedure and quality controls in the full paper before operational use.

Evidence quality

Low

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Abstract

As Large Language Model (LLM) agents are increasingly deployed in open-ended domains like software engineering, they frequently encounter underspecified instructions that lack crucial context. While human developers naturally resolve underspecification by asking clarifying questions, current agents are largely optimized for autonomous execution. In this work, we systematically evaluate the clarification-seeking abilities of LLM agents on an underspecified variant of SWE-bench Verified. We propose an uncertainty-aware multi-agent scaffold that explicitly decouples underspecification detection from code execution. Our results demonstrate that this multi-agent system using OpenHands + Claude Sonnet 4.5 achieves a 69.40% task resolve rate, significantly outperforming a standard single-agent setup (61.20%) and closing the performance gap with agents operating on fully specified instructions. Furthermore, we find that the multi-agent system exhibits well-calibrated uncertainty, conserving queries on simple tasks while proactively seeking information on more complex issues. These findings indicate that current models can be turned into proactive collaborators, where agents independently recognize when to ask questions to elicit missing information in real-world, underspecified tasks.

Abstract-only analysis — low confidence

All signals on this page are inferred from the abstract only and may be inaccurate. Do not use this page as a primary protocol reference.

  • This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.
  • The available metadata is too thin to trust this as a primary source.

Should You Rely On This Paper?

This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

A secondary eval reference to pair with stronger protocol papers.

Main weakness

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.

Trust level

Low

Usefulness score

0/100 • Low

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Detected

Usefulness for eval research

Adjacent candidate

Extraction confidence 25%

What We Could Verify

These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.

Human Feedback Types

missing

None explicit

No explicit feedback protocol extracted.

"As Large Language Model (LLM) agents are increasingly deployed in open-ended domains like software engineering, they frequently encounter underspecified instructions that lack crucial context."

Evaluation Modes

missing

None explicit

Validate eval design from full paper text.

"As Large Language Model (LLM) agents are increasingly deployed in open-ended domains like software engineering, they frequently encounter underspecified instructions that lack crucial context."

Quality Controls

missing

Not reported

No explicit QC controls found.

"As Large Language Model (LLM) agents are increasingly deployed in open-ended domains like software engineering, they frequently encounter underspecified instructions that lack crucial context."

Benchmarks / Datasets

partial

SWE Bench, SWE Bench Verified

Useful for quick benchmark comparison.

"In this work, we systematically evaluate the clarification-seeking abilities of LLM agents on an underspecified variant of SWE-bench Verified."

Reported Metrics

missing

Not extracted

No metric anchors detected.

"As Large Language Model (LLM) agents are increasingly deployed in open-ended domains like software engineering, they frequently encounter underspecified instructions that lack crucial context."

Human Feedback Details

  • Uses human feedback: No
  • Feedback types: None
  • Rater population: Not reported
  • Expertise required: Coding

Evaluation Details

  • Evaluation modes:
  • Agentic eval: Multi Agent
  • Quality controls: Not reported
  • Evidence quality: Low
  • Use this page as: Background context only

Protocol And Measurement Signals

Benchmarks / Datasets

SWE-benchSWE-bench Verified

Reported Metrics

No metric terms were extracted from the available abstract.

Research Brief

Metadata summary

As Large Language Model (LLM) agents are increasingly deployed in open-ended domains like software engineering, they frequently encounter underspecified instructions that lack crucial context.

Based on abstract + metadata only. Check the source paper before making high-confidence protocol decisions.

Key Takeaways

  • As Large Language Model (LLM) agents are increasingly deployed in open-ended domains like software engineering, they frequently encounter underspecified instructions that lack crucial context.
  • While human developers naturally resolve underspecification by asking clarifying questions, current agents are largely optimized for autonomous execution.
  • In this work, we systematically evaluate the clarification-seeking abilities of LLM agents on an underspecified variant of SWE-bench Verified.

Researcher Actions

  • Compare this paper against others mentioning SWE-bench.
  • Check the full text for explicit evaluation design choices (raters, protocol, and metrics).
  • Use related-paper links to find stronger protocol-specific references.

Caveats

  • Generated from abstract + metadata only; no PDF parsing.
  • Signals below are heuristic and may miss details reported outside the abstract.

Recommended Queries

Research Summary

Contribution Summary

  • As Large Language Model (LLM) agents are increasingly deployed in open-ended domains like software engineering, they frequently encounter underspecified instructions that lack crucial context.
  • We propose an uncertainty-aware multi-agent scaffold that explicitly decouples underspecification detection from code execution.
  • Our results demonstrate that this multi-agent system using OpenHands + Claude Sonnet 4.5 achieves a 69.40% task resolve rate, significantly outperforming a standard single-agent setup (61.20%) and closing the performance gap with agents…

Why It Matters For Eval

  • We propose an uncertainty-aware multi-agent scaffold that explicitly decouples underspecification detection from code execution.
  • Our results demonstrate that this multi-agent system using OpenHands + Claude Sonnet 4.5 achieves a 69.40% task resolve rate, significantly outperforming a standard single-agent setup (61.20%) and closing the performance gap with agents…

Researcher Checklist

  • Gap: Human feedback protocol is explicit

    No explicit human feedback protocol detected.

  • Gap: Evaluation mode is explicit

    No clear evaluation mode extracted.

  • Gap: Quality control reporting appears

    No calibration/adjudication/IAA control explicitly detected.

  • Pass: Benchmark or dataset anchors are present

    Detected: SWE-bench, SWE-bench Verified

  • Gap: Metric reporting is present

    No metric terms extracted.

Related Papers

Papers are ranked by protocol overlap, extraction signal alignment, and semantic proximity.

Get Started

The #1 talent network for AI training.

Self-Service
Post a job, get a curated shortlist
Manage your team directly on-platform
Managed Service
Most popular
Dedicated program lead for your project
We source, vet, and onboard your team
Freelance AI Trainer?
Join the #1 platform for finding AI training and data labeling work.