Related papers: Bug Detective and Quality Coach: Developers' Mental Models of AI-Assisted IDE Tools

Bug Detective and Quality Coach: Developers' Mental Models of AI-Assisted IDE Tools

URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2511.21197v1
Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2025 09:28:51 GMT
Title: Bug Detective and Quality Coach: Developers' Mental Models of AI-Assisted IDE Tools
Abstract summary: We conducted six co-design workshops with 58 developers to elicit their mental models about AI-assisted bug detection and readability features.<n>It emerged that developers conceive bug detection tools as textitbug detectives, which warn users only in case of critical issues.<n>Trust, in both tasks, depends on the clarity of explanations, timing, and user control.
Score: 6.740088349470244
License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
Abstract: AI-assisted tools support developers in performing cognitively demanding tasks such as bug detection and code readability assessment. Despite the advancements in the technical characteristics of these tools, little is known about how developers mentally model them and how mismatches affect trust, control, and adoption. We conducted six co-design workshops with 58 developers to elicit their mental models about AI-assisted bug detection and readability features. It emerged that developers conceive bug detection tools as \textit{bug detectives}, which warn users only in case of critical issues, guaranteeing transparency, actionable feedback, and confidence cues. Readability assessment tools, on the other hand, are envisioned as \textit{quality coaches}, which provide contextual, personalized, and progressive guidance. Trust, in both tasks, depends on the clarity of explanations, timing, and user control. A set of design principles for Human-Centered AI in IDEs has been distilled, aiming to balance disruption with support, conciseness with depth, and automation with human agency.

Related papers

Toward an Understanding of Developer Behaviour while Using Bug Localization Tools [2.4163616087447877]
The study demonstrates that bug localization is complex and suggests that the adoption of effective tools depends on more than their accuracy.<n>The preliminary findings provide insight into how developers interact with tools, the role social and contextual information plays, and problem solving.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2026-05-06T12:21:30Z)
Agent0-VL: Exploring Self-Evolving Agent for Tool-Integrated Vision-Language Reasoning [52.99434388759101]
We propose a self-evolving vision-language agent that achieves continual improvement with tool-integrated reasoning.<n>Agent0-VL incorporates tool usage not only into reasoning but also into self-evaluation and self-repair.<n>Our experiments show that Agent0-VL achieves an 12.5% improvement over the base model.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2025-11-25T04:15:14Z)
Impatient Users Confuse AI Agents: High-fidelity Simulations of Human Traits for Testing Agents [58.00130492861884]
TraitBasis is a lightweight, model-agnostic method for systematically stress testing AI agents.<n>TraitBasis learns directions in activation space corresponding to steerable user traits.<n>We observe on average a 2%-30% performance degradation on $tau$-Trait across frontier models.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2025-10-06T05:03:57Z)
AI Where It Matters: Where, Why, and How Developers Want AI Support in Daily Work [3.1984206905916]
Generative AI is reshaping software work, yet we lack clear guidance on where developers most need and want support.<n>We report a large-scale, mixed-methods study of N=860 developers that examines where, why, and how they seek or limit AI help.<n>Our results offer concrete, contextual guidance for delivering AI where it matters to developers and their work.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2025-10-01T10:51:03Z)
Vibe Coding in Practice: Motivations, Challenges, and a Future Outlook -- a Grey Literature Review [2.5195922470930614]
Vibe coding is the practice where users rely on AI code generation tools through intuition and trial-and-error without necessarily understanding the underlying code.<n>No research has systematically investigated why users engage in vibe coding, what they experience while doing so, and how they approach quality assurance (QA) and perceive the quality of the AI-generated code.<n>Our analysis reveals a speed-quality trade-off paradox, where vibe coders are motivated by speed and accessibility, often experiencing rapid instant success and flow'', yet most perceive the resulting code as fast but flawed.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2025-09-30T22:35:00Z)
CoCoNUTS: Concentrating on Content while Neglecting Uninformative Textual Styles for AI-Generated Peer Review Detection [60.52240468810558]
We introduce CoCoNUTS, a content-oriented benchmark built upon a fine-grained dataset of AI-generated peer reviews.<n>We also develop CoCoDet, an AI review detector via a multi-task learning framework, to achieve more accurate and robust detection of AI involvement in review content.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2025-08-28T06:03:11Z)
Code with Me or for Me? How Increasing AI Automation Transforms Developer Workflows [60.04362496037186]
We present the first controlled study of developer interactions with coding agents.<n>We evaluate two leading copilot and agentic coding assistants.<n>Our results show agents can assist developers in ways that surpass copilots.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2025-07-10T20:12:54Z)
From Teacher to Colleague: How Coding Experience Shapes Developer Perceptions of AI Tools [0.0]
AI-assisted development tools promise productivity gains and improved code quality, yet their adoption among developers remains inconsistent.<n>We analyze survey data from 3380 developers to examine how coding experience relates to AI awareness, adoption, and the roles developers assign to AI in their workflow.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2025-04-08T08:58:06Z)
Interactive Agents to Overcome Ambiguity in Software Engineering [61.40183840499932]
AI agents are increasingly being deployed to automate tasks, often based on ambiguous and underspecified user instructions.<n>Making unwarranted assumptions and failing to ask clarifying questions can lead to suboptimal outcomes.<n>We study the ability of LLM agents to handle ambiguous instructions in interactive code generation settings by evaluating proprietary and open-weight models on their performance.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2025-02-18T17:12:26Z)
Investigating and Designing for Trust in AI-powered Code Generation Tools [15.155301866886647]
We interviewed developers to understand their challenges in building appropriate trust in AI code generation tools. We conducted a design probe study to explore design concepts that support developers' trust-building process. These findings inform our proposed design recommendations on how to design for trust in AI-powered code generation tools.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-05-18T18:23:51Z)
A Large-Scale Survey on the Usability of AI Programming Assistants: Successes and Challenges [23.467373994306524]
In practice, developers do not accept AI programming assistants' initial suggestions at a high frequency. To understand developers' practices while using these tools, we administered a survey to a large population of developers. We found that developers are most motivated to use AI programming assistants because they help developers reduce key-strokes, finish programming tasks quickly, and recall syntax. We also found the most important reasons why developers do not use these tools are because these tools do not output code that addresses certain functional or non-functional requirements.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-03-30T03:21:53Z)
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)

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