From Developer Pairs to AI Copilots: A Comparative Study on Knowledge Transfer

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2506.04785v1
• Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2025 09:13:30 GMT
• Title: From Developer Pairs to AI Copilots: A Comparative Study on Knowledge Transfer
• Authors: Alisa Welter, Niklas Schneider, Tobias Dick, Kallistos Weis, Christof Tinnes, Marvin Wyrich, Sven Apel,
• Abstract summary: With the rise of AI coding assistants, developers now not only work with human partners but also, as some claim, with AI pair programmers.<n>To analyze knowledge transfer in both human-human and human-AI settings, we conducted an empirical study.<n>We found a similar frequency of successful knowledge transfer episodes and overlapping topical categories across both settings.
• Score: 8.567835367628787
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Knowledge transfer is fundamental to human collaboration and is therefore common in software engineering. Pair programming is a prominent instance. With the rise of AI coding assistants, developers now not only work with human partners but also, as some claim, with AI pair programmers. Although studies confirm knowledge transfer during human pair programming, its effectiveness with AI coding assistants remains uncertain. To analyze knowledge transfer in both human-human and human-AI settings, we conducted an empirical study where developer pairs solved a programming task without AI support, while a separate group of individual developers completed the same task using the AI coding assistant GitHub Copilot. We extended an existing knowledge transfer framework and employed a semi-automated evaluation pipeline to assess differences in knowledge transfer episodes across both settings. We found a similar frequency of successful knowledge transfer episodes and overlapping topical categories across both settings. Two of our key findings are that developers tend to accept GitHub Copilot's suggestions with less scrutiny than those from human pair programming partners, but also that GitHub Copilot can subtly remind developers of important code details they might otherwise overlook.

Related papers

• A Human Centric Requirements Engineering Framework for Assessing Github Copilot Output [0.0]
  GitHub Copilot introduces new challenges in how these software tools address human needs.<n>I analyzed GitHub Copilot's interaction with users through its chat interface.<n>I established a human-centered requirements framework with clear metrics to evaluate these qualities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-05T21:33:23Z)
• The Rise of AI Teammates in Software Engineering (SE) 3.0: How Autonomous Coding Agents Are Reshaping Software Engineering [10.252332355171237]
  This paper introduces AIDev, the first largescale dataset capturing how such agents operate in the wild.<n>Spanning over 456,000 pull requests by five leading agents, AIDev provides an unprecedented empirical foundation for studying autonomous teammates in software development.<n>The dataset includes rich on PRs, authorship, review timelines, code changes, and integration outcomes.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-20T15:15:58Z)
• Code with Me or for Me? How Increasing AI Automation Transforms Developer Workflows [66.1850490474361]
  We conduct the first academic study to explore developer interactions with coding agents.<n>We evaluate two leading copilot and agentic coding assistants, GitHub Copilot and OpenHands.<n>Our results show agents have the potential to assist developers in ways that surpass copilots.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-10T20:12:54Z)
• Does Co-Development with AI Assistants Lead to More Maintainable Code? A Registered Report [6.7428644467224]
  This study aims to examine the influence of AI assistants on software maintainability. In Phase 1, developers will add a new feature to a Java project, with or without the aid of an AI assistant. In Phase 2, a randomized controlled trial, will involve a different set of developers evolving random Phase 1 projects - working without AI assistants.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-20T11:48:42Z)
• OpenHands: An Open Platform for AI Software Developers as Generalist Agents [109.8507367518992]
  We introduce OpenHands, a platform for the development of AI agents that interact with the world in similar ways to a human developer.<n>We describe how the platform allows for the implementation of new agents, safe interaction with sandboxed environments for code execution, and incorporation of evaluation benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-23T17:50:43Z)
• Rethinking Software Engineering in the Foundation Model Era: From Task-Driven AI Copilots to Goal-Driven AI Pair Programmers [30.996760992473064]
  We propose a paradigm shift towards goal-driven AI-powered pair programmers that collaborate with human developers. We envision AI pair programmers that are goal-driven, human partners, SE-aware, and self-learning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-16T02:10:20Z)
• Generative AI for Pull Request Descriptions: Adoption, Impact, and Developer Interventions [11.620351603683496]
  GitHub's Copilot for Pull Requests (PRs) is a promising service aiming to automate various developer tasks related to PRs. In this study, we examine 18,256 PRs in which parts of the descriptions were crafted by generative AI. Our findings indicate that Copilot for PRs, though in its infancy, is seeing a marked uptick in adoption.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-14T06:20:57Z)
• HoloAssist: an Egocentric Human Interaction Dataset for Interactive AI Assistants in the Real World [48.90399899928823]
  This work is part of a broader research effort to develop intelligent agents that can interactively guide humans through performing tasks in the physical world. We introduce HoloAssist, a large-scale egocentric human interaction dataset. We present key insights into how human assistants correct mistakes, intervene in the task completion procedure, and ground their instructions to the environment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-29T07:17:43Z)
• Is AI the better programming partner? Human-Human Pair Programming vs. Human-AI pAIr Programming [18.635201328291597]
  We compare human-human and human-AI pair programming, exploring their similarities and differences in interaction, measures, benefits, and challenges. We find that the effectiveness of both approaches is mixed in the literature. We summarize factors on the success of human-human pair programming, which provides opportunities for pAIr programming research.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-08T12:22:56Z)
• 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)
• The MineRL BASALT Competition on Learning from Human Feedback [58.17897225617566]
  The MineRL BASALT competition aims to spur forward research on this important class of techniques. We design a suite of four tasks in Minecraft for which we expect it will be hard to write down hardcoded reward functions. We provide a dataset of human demonstrations on each of the four tasks, as well as an imitation learning baseline.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-07-05T12:18:17Z)
• Joint Mind Modeling for Explanation Generation in Complex Human-Robot Collaborative Tasks [83.37025218216888]
  We propose a novel explainable AI (XAI) framework for achieving human-like communication in human-robot collaborations. The robot builds a hierarchical mind model of the human user and generates explanations of its own mind as a form of communications. Results show that the generated explanations of our approach significantly improves the collaboration performance and user perception of the robot.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-07-24T23:35:03Z)

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.