An official website of the United States government
Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated unprecedented capability in code generation. However, LLM-generated code is still plagued with a wide range of functional errors, especially for complex programming tasks that LLMs have not seen before. Recent studies have shown that developers often struggle with inspecting and fixing incorrect code generated by LLMs, diminishing their productivity and trust in LLM-based code generation. Inspired by the mutual grounding theory in communication, we propose an interactive approach that leverages code comments as a medium for developers and LLMs to establish a shared understanding. Our approach facilitates iterative grounding by interleaving code generation, inline comment generation, and contextualized user feedback through editable comments to align generated code with developer intent. We evaluated our approach on two popular benchmarks and demonstrated that our approach significantly improved multiple state-of-the-art LLMs, e.g., 17.1% pass@1 improvement for code-davinci-002 on HumanEval. Furthermore, we conducted a user study with 12 participants in comparison to two baselines: (1) interacting with GitHub Copilot, and (2) interacting with a multi-step code generation paradigm called Multi-Turn Program Synthesis. Participants completed the given programming tasks 16.7% faster and with 10.5% improvement in task success rate when using our approach. Both results show that interactively refining code comments enables the collaborative establishment of mutual grounding, leading to more accurate code generation and higher developer confidence.
more »
« less
Expectation vs. Experience: Evaluating the Usability of Code Generation Tools Powered by Large Language Models
Recent advances in Large Language Models (LLM) have made automatic code generation possible for real-world programming tasks in general-purpose programming languages such as Python. However, there are few human studies on the usability of these tools and how they fit the programming workflow. In this work, we conducted a within-subjects user study with 24 participants to understand how programmers use and perceive Copilot, a LLM-based code generation tool. We found that, while Copilot did not necessarily improve the task completion time or success rate, most participants preferred to use Copilot in daily programming tasks, since Copilot often provided a useful starting point and saved the effort of searching online. However, participants did face difficulties in understanding, editing, and debugging code snippets generated by Copilot, which significantly hindered their task-solving effectiveness. Finally, we highlighted several promising directions for improving the design of Copilot based on our observations and participants’ feedback.
more »
« less
- PAR ID:
- 10366304
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems Extended Abstracts (CHI ’22 Extended Abstracts)
- Page Range / eLocation ID:
- 1 to 7
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
Powered by recent advances in code-generating models, AI assistants like Github Copilot promise to change the face of programming forever. But whatisthis new face of programming? We present the first grounded theory analysis of how programmers interact with Copilot, based on observing 20 participants—with a range of prior experience using the assistant—as they solve diverse programming tasks across four languages. Our main finding is that interactions with programming assistants arebimodal: inacceleration mode, the programmer knows what to do next and uses Copilot to get there faster; inexploration mode, the programmer is unsure how to proceed and uses Copilot to explore their options. Based on our theory, we provide recommendations for improving the usability of future AI programming assistants.more » « less
-
While AI programming tools hold the promise of increasing programmers’ capabilities and productivity to a remarkable degree, they often exclude users from essential decision making processes, causing many to effectively “turn off their brains” and over-rely on solutions provided by these systems. These behaviors can have severe consequences in critical domains, like software security. We propose Human-in-the-Loop Decoding, a novel interaction technique that allows users to observe and directly influence LLM decisions during code generation, in order to align the model’s output with their personal requirements. We implement this technique in HILDE, a code completion assistant that highlights critical decisions made by the LLM and provides local alternatives for the user to explore. In a within-subjects study (N=18) on security-related tasks, we found that HILDE led participants to generate significantly fewer vulnerabilities and better align code generation with their goals compared to a traditional code completion assistant.more » « less
-
While AI programming tools hold the promise of increasing programmers’ capabilities and productivity to a remarkable degree, they often exclude users from essential decision making processes, causing many to effectively “turn off their brains” and over-rely on solutions provided by these systems. These behaviors can have severe consequences in critical domains, like software security. We propose Human-in-the-Loop Decoding, a novel interaction technique that allows users to observe and directly influence LLM decisions during code generation, in order to align the model’s output with their personal requirements. We implement this technique in HILDE, a code completion assistant that highlights critical decisions made by the LLM and provides local alternatives for the user to explore. In a within-subjects study (N=18) on security-related tasks, we found that HILDE led participants to generate significantly fewer vulnerabilities and better align code generation with their goals compared to a traditional code completion assistant.more » « less
-
Code intelligence tools such as GitHub Copilot have begun to bridge the gap between natural language and programming language. A frequent software development task is the management of technical debts, which are suboptimal solutions or unaddressed issues which hinder future software development. Developers have been found to ``self-admit'' technical debts (SATD) in software artifacts such as source code comments. Thus, is it possible that the information present in these comments can enhance code generative prompts to repay the described SATD? Or, does the inclusion of such comments instead cause code generative tools to reproduce the harmful symptoms of described technical debt? Does the modification of SATD impact this reaction? Despite the heavy maintenance costs caused by technical debt and the recent improvements of code intelligence tools, no prior works have sought to incorporate SATD towards prompt engineering. Inspired by this, this paper contributes and analyzes a dataset consisting of 36,381 TODO comments in the latest available revisions of their respective 102,424 repositories, from which we sample and manually generate 1,140 code bodies using GitHub Copilot. Our experiments show that GitHub Copilot can generate code with the symptoms of SATD, both prompted and unprompted. Moreover, we demonstrate the tool's ability to automatically repay SATD under different circumstances and qualitatively investigate the characteristics of successful and unsuccessful comments. Finally, we discuss gaps in which GitHub Copilot's successors and future researchers can improve upon code intelligence tasks to facilitate AI-assisted software maintenance.more » « less
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Conference Paper:
- https://doi.org/10.1145/3491101.3519665
