Search for: All records

Programmers often rely on online resources—such as code examples, documentation, blogs, and Q&A forums—to compare similar libraries and select the one most suitable for their own tasks and contexts. However, this comparison task is often done in an ad-hoc manner, which may result in suboptimal choices. Inspired by Analogical Learning and Variation Theory, we hypothesize that rendering many concept-annotated code examples from different libraries side-by-side can help programmers (1) develop a more comprehensive understanding of the libraries’ similarities and distinctions and (2) make more robust, appropriate library selections. We designed a novel interactive interface, ParaLib, and used it as a technical probe to explore to what extent many side-by-side concepted-annotated examples can facilitate the library comparison and selection process. A within-subjects user study with 20 programmers shows that, when using ParaLib, participants made more consistent, suitable library selections and provided more comprehensive summaries of libraries’ similarities and differences. 

Schema induction builds a graph representation explaining how events unfold in a scenario. Existing approaches have been based on information retrieval (IR) and information extraction (IE), often with limited human curation. We demonstrate a human-in-the-loop schema induction system powered by GPT-3. We first describe the different modules of our system, including prompting to generate schematic elements, manual edit of those elements, and conversion of those into a schema graph. By qualitatively comparing our system to previous ones, we show that our system not only transfers to new domains more easily than previous approaches, but also reduces efforts of human curation thanks to our interactive interface. 

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.