Fewer Clarifications, Better Code: Benchmarking Cross-Session Personalized Ambiguity Adaptation in Coding Assistants

AI-assisted coding increasingly translates informal user intent into executable software, yet coding requests often contain ambiguities that recur in user-specific ways across tasks and sessions. Existing disambiguation methods typically address each ambiguous request in isolation within the current coding session, often through eliciting additional clarification. However, whether resolved session history from the same user can serve as memory for resolving recurring personalized ambiguity in a newly opened session remains underexplored. We formulate personalized ambiguity adaptation as a new task: given a user's previously resolved coding sessions and a new ambiguous request, an assistant should identify the recurring ambiguity pattern, produce the intended executable solution, and minimize clarification. To benchmark this task, we introduce CAPA, which characterizes personalized coding ambiguity through six mechanisms and injects these mechanisms into unambiguous executable tasks using a controlled three-stage generation pipeline. CAPA contains 600 coding sessions across 60 balanced user--ambiguity cells, including 300 held-out evaluation sessions. We evaluate 12 recent LLMs under no-history and same-user-history conditions using executable success, first-turn success, and turns-to-completion. Our analyses examine task difficulty, user identity, and memory-based history use, and we further propose same-user history gating as a lightweight inference-time method. CAPA provides a foundation for developing long-term coding assistants that better align generated code with user intent while reducing repeated clarification.

Lost in the Flow with Code Talkers: Unveiling the Instruction-Tuning Tax of Large Language Models in Code Tasks

AI coding assistants have significantly improved developer productivity by automatically suggesting code that aligns with user intent, and many of these tools are now integrated directly into Integrated Development Environments (IDEs). Developers interact with code in two distinct cognitive modes: Flow and Command. While developers require tools that directly complete or infill code in unfinished programs during Flow mode, they also need tools that can comprehend intentions expressed as natural-language instructions and convert them into executable code in Command mode. Although instruction-tuned Large Language Models (LLMs) dominate many application scenarios due to their abilities to infer and fulfill developers' intents, it remains unclear whether the same paradigm is equally suitable for different code-related tasks. Therefore, it is necessary to understand how instruction tuning affects the feasibility of CodeLLMs as coding assistants. To fill this gap, we conduct the first empirical study that uncovers a key trade-off caused by instruction tuning across programming modes, which we term the Instruction-Tuning Tax. Our results show that instruction tuning is not a free lunch: although instruction-tuned models are more capable of following instructions and leveraging structured guidance, these gains often come at the cost of weaker infilling performance. We further extend our study through both qualitative and quantitative analyses, including manual failure categorization, behavioral metrics that capture generation fidelity, and intermediate-checkpoint evaluation throughout the tuning process. Summarizing our results into seven findings and four implications, our study offers a new perspective on the development of AI-powered coding tools and highlights the need to carefully balance instruction-following ability with effective code generation assistance.