Search for: All records

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. 

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. 

Although birthed in the era of teletypes, the command line shell survived the graphical interface revolution of the 1980’s and lives on in modern desktop operating systems. The command line provides access to powerful functionality not otherwise exposed on the computer, but requires users to recall textual syntax and carefully scour documentation. In contrast, graphical interfaces let users organically discover and invoke possible actions through widgets and menus. To better expose the power of the command line, we demonstrate a mechanism for automatically creating graphical interfaces for command line tools by translating their documentation (in the form of man pages) into interface specifications via AI. Using these specifications, our user-facing system, called GUIDE, presents the command options to the user graphically. We evaluate the generated interfaces on a corpus of commands to show to what degree GUIDE offers thorough graphical interfaces for users’ real-world command line tasks. 

Although birthed in the era of teletypes, the command line shell survived the graphical interface revolution of the 1980’s and lives on in modern desktop operating systems. The command line provides access to powerful functionality not otherwise exposed on the computer, but requires users to recall textual syntax and carefully scour documentation. In contrast, graphical interfaces let users organically discover and invoke possible actions through widgets and menus. To better expose the power of the command line, we demonstrate a mechanism for automatically creating graphical interfaces for command line tools by translating their documentation (in the form of man pages) into interface specifications via AI. Using these specifications, our user-facing system, called GUIDE, presents the command options to the user graphically. We evaluate the generated interfaces on a corpus of commands to show to what degree GUIDE offers thorough graphical interfaces for users’ real-world command line tasks. 

Computational notebooks are intended to prioritize the needs of scientists, but little is known about how scientists interact with notebooks, what requirements drive scientists’ software development processes, or what tactics scientists use to meet their requirements. We conducted an observational study of 20 scientists using Jupyter notebooks for their day-to-day tasks, finding that scientists prioritize different quality attributes depending on their goals. A qualitative analysis of their usage shows (1) a collection of goals scientists pursue with Jupyter notebooks, (2) a set of quality attributes that scientists value when they write software, and (3) tactics that scientists leverage to promote quality. In addition, we identify ways scientists incorporated AI tools into their notebook work. From our observations, we derive design recommendations for improving computational notebooks and future programming systems for scientists. Key opportunities pertain to helping scientists create and manage state, dependencies, and abstractions in their software, enabling more effective reuse of clearly-defined components. 

Formal verification using proof assistants, such as Coq, enables the creation of high-quality software. However, the verification process requires significant expertise and manual effort to write proofs. Recent work has explored automating proof synthesis using machine learning and large language models (LLMs). This work has shown that identifying relevant premises, such as lemmas and definitions, can aid synthesis. We present Rango, a fully automated proof synthesis tool for Coq that automatically identifies relevant premises and also similar proofs from the current project and uses them during synthesis. Rango uses retrieval augmentation at every step of the proof to automatically determine which proofs and premises to include in the context of its fine-tuned LLM. In this way, Rango adapts to the project and to the evolving state of the proof. We create a new dataset, CoqStoq, of 2,226 open-source Coq projects and 196,929 theorems from GitHub, which includes both training data and a curated evaluation benchmark of well-maintained projects. On this benchmark, Rango synthesizes proofs for 32.0% of the theorems, which is 29% more theorems than the prior state-of-the- art tool Tactician. Our evaluation also shows that Rango adding relevant proofs to its context leads to a 47% increase in the number of theorems proven. 

Recent advances in Automated Theorem Proving have shown the effectiveness of leveraging a (large) language model that generates tactics (i.e. proof steps) to search through proof states. The current model, while trained solely on successful proof paths, faces a discrepancy at the inference stage, as it must sample and try various tactics at each proof state until finding success, unlike its training which does not incorporate learning from failed attempts. Intuitively, a tactic that leads to a failed search path would indicate that similar tactics should receive less attention during the following trials. In this paper, we demonstrate the benefit of training models that additionally learn from failed search paths. Facing the lack of such trial-and-error data in existing open-source theorem-proving datasets, we curate a dataset on intuitionistic propositional logic theorems and formalize it in Lean, such that we can reliably check the correctness of proofs. We compare our model trained on relatively short trial-and-error information (TRIALMASTER) with models trained only on the correct paths and discover that the former solves more unseen theorems with lower trial searches.