Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

How Beginning Programmers and Code LLMs (Mis)read Each Other

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

arxiv 2401.15232 v2 pith:P643P6HM submitted 2024-01-26 cs.HC

How Beginning Programmers and Code LLMs (Mis)read Each Other

classification cs.HC
keywords codeeditingpromptstext-to-codebeginningcorrectnessgeneratedlanguage
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Generative AI models, specifically large language models (LLMs), have made strides towards the long-standing goal of text-to-code generation. This progress has invited numerous studies of user interaction. However, less is known about the struggles and strategies of non-experts, for whom each step of the text-to-code problem presents challenges: describing their intent in natural language, evaluating the correctness of generated code, and editing prompts when the generated code is incorrect. This paper presents a large-scale controlled study of how 120 beginning coders across three academic institutions approach writing and editing prompts. A novel experimental design allows us to target specific steps in the text-to-code process and reveals that beginners struggle with writing and editing prompts, even for problems at their skill level and when correctness is automatically determined. Our mixed-methods evaluation provides insight into student processes and perceptions with key implications for non-expert Code LLM use within and outside of education.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. A Study of LLMs' Preferences for Libraries and Programming Languages

    cs.SE 2025-03 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Empirical study of eight LLMs finds overuse of popular libraries like NumPy in up to 45% of unnecessary cases and strong default preference for Python even when suboptimal.

  2. Precision or Peril: A PoC of Python Code Quality from Quantized Large Language Models

    cs.SE 2024-11 unverdicted novelty 3.0

    Smaller LLMs produce functional but limited Python code with variable quantization effects and quality/maintainability concerns that require validation before use.