Assessing Consensus of Developers' Views on Code Readability

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2407.03790v1
• Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2024 09:54:42 GMT
• Title: Assessing Consensus of Developers' Views on Code Readability
• Authors: Agnia Sergeyuk, Olga Lvova, Sergey Titov, Anastasiia Serova, Farid Bagirov, Timofey Bryksin,
• Abstract summary: Developers now spend more time reviewing code than writing it, highlighting the importance of Code Readability for code comprehension. Previous research found that existing Code Readability models were inaccurate in representing developers' notions. We surveyed 10 Java developers with similar coding experience to evaluate their consensus on Code Readability assessments and related aspects.
• Score: 3.798885293742468
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: The rapid rise of Large Language Models (LLMs) has changed software development, with tools like Copilot, JetBrains AI Assistant, and others boosting developers' productivity. However, developers now spend more time reviewing code than writing it, highlighting the importance of Code Readability for code comprehension. Our previous research found that existing Code Readability models were inaccurate in representing developers' notions and revealed a low consensus among developers, highlighting a need for further investigations in this field. Building on this, we surveyed 10 Java developers with similar coding experience to evaluate their consensus on Code Readability assessments and related aspects. We found significant agreement among developers on Code Readability evaluations and identified specific code aspects strongly correlated with Code Readability. Overall, our study sheds light on Code Readability within LLM contexts, offering insights into how these models can align with developers' perceptions of Code Readability, enhancing software development in the AI era.

Related papers

• Understanding Code Understandability Improvements in Code Reviews [79.16476505761582]
  We analyzed 2,401 code review comments from Java open-source projects on GitHub. 83.9% of suggestions for improvement were accepted and integrated, with fewer than 1% later reverted.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-29T12:21:23Z)
• Codev-Bench: How Do LLMs Understand Developer-Centric Code Completion? [60.84912551069379]
  We present the Code-Development Benchmark (Codev-Bench), a fine-grained, real-world, repository-level, and developer-centric evaluation framework. Codev-Agent is an agent-based system that automates repository crawling, constructs execution environments, extracts dynamic calling chains from existing unit tests, and generates new test samples to avoid data leakage.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-02T09:11:10Z)
• Beyond Functional Correctness: Investigating Coding Style Inconsistencies in Large Language Models [28.295926947968574]
  Large language models (LLMs) have brought a paradigm shift to the field of code generation. We empirically analyze the differences in coding style between the code generated by Code LLMs and the code written by human developers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-29T14:56:11Z)
• A Study on Developer Behaviors for Validating and Repairing LLM-Generated Code Using Eye Tracking and IDE Actions [13.58143103712]
  GitHub Copilot is a large language model (LLM)-powered code generation tool. This paper investigates how developers validate and repair code generated by Copilot. Being aware of the code's provenance led to improved performance, increased search efforts, more frequent Copilot usage, and higher cognitive workload.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-25T06:20:01Z)
• AI-powered Code Review with LLMs: Early Results [10.37036924997437]
  We present a novel approach to improving software quality and efficiency through a Large Language Model (LLM)-based model. Our proposed LLM-based AI agent model is trained on large code repositories. It aims to detect code smells, identify potential bugs, provide suggestions for improvement, and optimize the code.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-29T08:27:50Z)
• Comments as Natural Logic Pivots: Improve Code Generation via Comment Perspective [85.48043537327258]
  We propose MANGO (comMents As Natural loGic pivOts), including a comment contrastive training strategy and a corresponding logical comment decoding strategy. Results indicate that MANGO significantly improves the code pass rate based on the strong baselines. The robustness of the logical comment decoding strategy is notably higher than the Chain-of-thoughts prompting.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-11T08:30:46Z)
• CodeEditorBench: Evaluating Code Editing Capability of Large Language Models [49.387195629660994]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) for code are rapidly evolving, with code editing emerging as a critical capability. We introduce CodeEditorBench, an evaluation framework designed to rigorously assess the performance of LLMs in code editing tasks. We curate diverse coding challenges and scenarios from five sources, covering various programming languages, complexity levels, and editing tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-04T15:49:49Z)
• Can ChatGPT Support Developers? An Empirical Evaluation of Large Language Models for Code Generation [2.93322471069531]
  We conduct an empirical analysis of conversations in DevGPT, a dataset collected from developers' conversations with ChatGPT. Our findings indicate that the current practice of using LLM-generated code is typically limited to either demonstrating high-level concepts or providing examples in documentation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-18T20:48:09Z)
• Exploring the Advances in Identifying Useful Code Review Comments [0.0]
  This paper reflects the evolution of research on the usefulness of code review comments. It examines papers that define the usefulness of code review comments, mine and annotate datasets, study developers' perceptions, analyze factors from different aspects, and use machine learning classifiers to automatically predict the usefulness of code review comments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-03T00:41:20Z)
• Generation Probabilities Are Not Enough: Uncertainty Highlighting in AI Code Completions [54.55334589363247]
  We study whether conveying information about uncertainty enables programmers to more quickly and accurately produce code. We find that highlighting tokens with the highest predicted likelihood of being edited leads to faster task completion and more targeted edits.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-14T18:43:34Z)
• ReACC: A Retrieval-Augmented Code Completion Framework [53.49707123661763]
  We propose a retrieval-augmented code completion framework, leveraging both lexical copying and referring to code with similar semantics by retrieval. We evaluate our approach in the code completion task in Python and Java programming languages, achieving a state-of-the-art performance on CodeXGLUE benchmark.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-03-15T08:25:08Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.