Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This study systematically evaluates the understanding of standardized software engineering terminology by state-of-the-art large language models (LLMs). By prompting LLMs with both correct and systematically falsified definitions from the ISO/IEC/IEEE 24765:2017 vocabulary, the authors reveal a concerning trend: while LLMs often identify falsified definitions accurately, they also exhibit a rejection bias against valid definitions. The findings highlight critical gaps in LLM comprehension that could lead to miscommunication in software engineering contexts, underscoring the need for improved terminological precision in LLM outputs.
LLMs can accurately identify falsified software engineering definitions but paradoxically reject many correct ones, revealing a troubling bias in their understanding.
Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used in software engineering (SE), yet there is no systematic study that determines to which degree these LLMs actually understand standardized SE terminology. Lack of such understanding can lead to miscommunication and misunderstanding, both by LLMs consuming text but also by human-developers acting on LLM-generated text. Within this paper, we investigate to which degree state-of-the-art LLMs are able to identify whether definitions from the ISO/IEC/IEEE 24765:2017 Systems and Software Engineering - Vocabulary are correct. We prompt LLMs both with correct definitions, as well as systematically falsified definitions. The falsifications are both semantic (substitution of key terms) and structural (removing critical information). We measure both classification accuracy and whether reasoning tokens generated by the LLMs make sense with respect to understanding the definition. While most LLMs detect falsified definitions with high accuracy, they also reject many correct definitions, indicating a systematic rejection bias rather than genuine discriminative understanding. Explicit reasoning does not consistently improve results and may even hinder performance through over-thinking. Our work demonstrates that while the performance of LLMs (including their agentic use) in many SE tasks is impressive, there are still fundamental issues to understand how this will impact SE, including the consistent use of terminology.
