REVIEW 7 cited by
A Study on Developer Behaviors for Validating and Repairing LLM-Generated Code Using Eye Tracking and IDE Actions
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
A Study on Developer Behaviors for Validating and Repairing LLM-Generated Code Using Eye Tracking and IDE Actions
read the original abstract
The increasing use of large language model (LLM)-powered code generation tools, such as GitHub Copilot, is transforming software engineering practices. This paper investigates how developers validate and repair code generated by Copilot and examines the impact of code provenance awareness during these processes. We conducted a lab study with 28 participants, who were tasked with validating and repairing Copilot-generated code in three software projects. Participants were randomly divided into two groups: one informed about the provenance of LLM-generated code and the other not. We collected data on IDE interactions, eye-tracking, cognitive workload assessments, and conducted semi-structured interviews. Our results indicate that, without explicit information, developers often fail to identify the LLM origin of the code. Developers generally employ similar validation and repair strategies for LLM-generated code, but exhibit behaviors such as frequent switching between code and comments, different attentional focus, and a tendency to delete and rewrite code. Being aware of the code's provenance led to improved performance, increased search efforts, more frequent Copilot usage, and higher cognitive workload. These findings enhance our understanding of how developers interact with LLM-generated code and carry implications for designing tools that facilitate effective human-LLM collaboration in software development.
Forward citations
Cited by 7 Pith papers
-
To What Extent Does Agent-generated Code Require Maintenance? An Empirical Study
AI-generated code requires less maintenance than human code, with humans handling the majority of changes that are mostly feature extensions rather than bug fixes.
-
Empowering Autonomous Debugging Agents with Efficient Dynamic Analysis
ADI equips AI debugging agents with function-level interaction via a new execution trace structure, raising SWE-bench Verified resolution to 63.8% at $1.28 per task and delivering 6-18% gains when added to existing agents.
-
Choose Your Own Adventure: Non-Linear AI-Assisted Programming with EvoGraph
EvoGraph turns linear AI-assisted programming into a manipulable graph of branching histories, reducing cognitive load and enabling better iteration according to a user study with 20 developers.
-
Cheap Code, Costly Judgment: A Case Study on Governable Agentic Software Engineering
High-velocity agentic coding becomes governable when engineers convert recurring structural failures into durable, machine-actionable governance mechanisms rather than relying on continuous human code review.
-
Software Delegation Contracts: Measuring Reviewability in AI Coding-Agent Work
Explicit delegation contracts improve reviewability metrics for AI coding agents without changing objective correctness in a 64-run pilot study.
-
To What Extent Does Agent-generated Code Require Maintenance? An Empirical Study
AI-generated code requires less maintenance than human-written code, mostly involving feature additions by humans rather than bug fixes.
-
Cheap Code, Costly Judgment: A Case Study on Governable Agentic Software Engineering
A case study of AI-agentic software development yields a process model explaining how engineering judgment converts recurring structural failures into durable governance mechanisms.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.