Developer-LLM Conversations: An Empirical Study of Interactions and Generated Code Quality

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2509.10402v1
• Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2025 16:52:49 GMT
• Title: Developer-LLM Conversations: An Empirical Study of Interactions and Generated Code Quality
• Abstract summary: Large Language Models (LLMs) are becoming integral to modern software development.<n>We leverage CodeChat, a dataset of 82,845 real-world developer-LLM conversations.<n>We find that LLM responses are substantially longer than developer prompts.
• Score: 4.05144752916486
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) are becoming integral to modern software development workflows, assisting developers with code generation, API explanation, and iterative problem-solving through natural language conversations. Despite widespread adoption, there is limited understanding of how developers interact with LLMs in practice and how these conversational dynamics influence task outcomes, code quality, and software engineering workflows. To address this, we leverage CodeChat, a large dataset comprising 82,845 real-world developer-LLM conversations, containing 368,506 code snippets generated across over 20 programming languages, derived from the WildChat dataset. We find that LLM responses are substantially longer than developer prompts, with a median token-length ratio of 14:1. Multi-turn conversations account for 68% of the dataset and often evolve due to shifting requirements, incomplete prompts, or clarification requests. Topic analysis identifies web design (9.6% of conversations) and neural network training (8.7% of conversations) as the most frequent LLM-assisted tasks. Evaluation across five languages (i.e., Python, JavaScript, C++, Java, and C#) reveals prevalent and language-specific issues in LLM-generated code: generated Python and JavaScript code often include undefined variables (83.4% and 75.3% of code snippets, respectively); Java code lacks required comments (75.9%); C++ code frequently omits headers (41.1%) and C# code shows unresolved namespaces (49.2%). During a conversation, syntax and import errors persist across turns; however, documentation quality in Java improves by up to 14.7%, and import handling in Python improves by 3.7% over 5 turns. Prompts that point out mistakes in code generated in prior turns and explicitly request a fix are most effective for resolving errors.

Related papers

• Anka: A Domain-Specific Language for Reliable LLM Code Generation [0.0]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) exhibit systematic errors on complex, multi-step programming tasks.<n>We introduce Anka, a domain-specific language () for data transformation pipelines designed with explicit, constrained syntax.<n>Anka achieves 99.9% parse success and 95.8% overall task accuracy across 100 benchmark problems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-29T05:28:17Z)
• A Multi-Language Object-Oriented Programming Benchmark for Large Language Models [61.267115598083315]
  A survey of 35 existing benchmarks uncovers three major imbalances.<n>85.7% focus on a single programming language.<n>94.3% target only function-level or statement-level tasks.<n>Over 80% include fewer than ten test cases on average.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-30T11:30:08Z)
• IFEvalCode: Controlled Code Generation [69.28317223249358]
  The paper introduces forward and backward constraints generation to improve the instruction-following capabilities of Code LLMs.<n>The authors present IFEvalCode, a multilingual benchmark comprising 1.6K test samples across seven programming languages.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-30T08:08:48Z)
• Crystal: Illuminating LLM Abilities on Language and Code [58.5467653736537]
  We propose a pretraining strategy to enhance the integration of natural language and coding capabilities. The resulting model, Crystal, demonstrates remarkable capabilities in both domains.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-06T10:28:46Z)
• CRUXEval-X: A Benchmark for Multilingual Code Reasoning, Understanding and Execution [50.1875460416205]
  The CRUXEVAL-X code reasoning benchmark contains 19 programming languages.<n>It comprises at least 600 subjects for each language, along with 19K content-consistent tests in total.<n>Even a model trained solely on Python can achieve at most 34.4% Pass@1 in other languages.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-23T11:43:00Z)
• BigCodeBench: Benchmarking Code Generation with Diverse Function Calls and Complex Instructions [72.56339136017759]
  We introduce BigCodeBench, a benchmark that challenges Large Language Models (LLMs) to invoke multiple function calls as tools from 139 libraries and 7 domains for 1,140 fine-grained tasks.<n>Our evaluation shows that LLMs are not yet capable of following complex instructions to use function calls precisely, with scores up to 60%, significantly lower than the human performance of 97%.<n>We propose a natural-language-oriented variant of BigCodeBench, BigCodeBench-Instruct, that automatically transforms the original docstrings into short instructions only with essential information.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-22T15:52:04Z)
• MapCoder: Multi-Agent Code Generation for Competitive Problem Solving [3.3856216159724983]
  We introduce a new approach to code generation tasks leveraging multi-agent prompting. Our framework, MapCoder, consists of four LLM agents specifically designed to emulate the stages of program synthesis. Our method consistently delivers superior performance across various programming languages.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-18T22:10:15Z)
• ML-Bench: Evaluating Large Language Models and Agents for Machine Learning Tasks on Repository-Level Code [76.84199699772903]
  ML-Bench is a benchmark rooted in real-world programming applications that leverage existing code repositories to perform tasks. To evaluate both Large Language Models (LLMs) and AI agents, two setups are employed: ML-LLM-Bench for assessing LLMs' text-to-code conversion within a predefined deployment environment, and ML-Agent-Bench for testing autonomous agents in an end-to-end task execution within a Linux sandbox environment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-16T12:03:21Z)
• Large Language Models Should Ask Clarifying Questions to Increase Confidence in Generated Code [0.7252027234425334]
  Large language models (LLMs) have significantly improved the ability to perform tasks in the field of code generation. There is still a gap between LLMs being capable coders and being top-tier software engineers. I propose a communication-centered process that uses an LLM-generated communicator to identify issues with high ambiguity or low confidence in problem descriptions and generated code.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-25T17:33:05Z)
• Can ChatGPT replace StackOverflow? A Study on Robustness and Reliability of Large Language Model Code Generation [8.575560293086289]
  Large language models (LLMs) have shown extraordinary ability in understanding natural language and generating programming code. The misuse of APIs in the generated code could lead to severe problem, such as resource leaks, program crashes.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-20T18:36:28Z)

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.