Cognitive Biases in LLM-Assisted Software Development

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2601.08045v1
• Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2026 22:32:21 GMT
• Title: Cognitive Biases in LLM-Assisted Software Development
• Authors: Xinyi Zhou, Zeinadsadat Saghi, Sadra Sabouri, Rahul Pandita, Mollie McGuire, Souti Chattopadhyay,
• Abstract summary: This paper presents the first comprehensive study of cognitive biases in Large Language Models (LLMs)-assisted development.<n>Through a systematic analysis of 90 cognitive biases specific to developer-LLM interactions, we develop a taxonomy of 15 bias categories validated by cognitive psychologists.
• Score: 4.020789871097349
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: The widespread adoption of Large Language Models (LLMs) in software development is transforming programming from a solution-generative to a solution-evaluative activity. This shift opens a pathway for new cognitive challenges that amplify existing decision-making biases or create entirely novel ones. One such type of challenge stems from cognitive biases, which are thinking patterns that lead people away from logical reasoning and result in sub-optimal decisions. How do cognitive biases manifest and impact decision-making in emerging AI-collaborative development? This paper presents the first comprehensive study of cognitive biases in LLM-assisted development. We employ a mixed-methods approach, combining observational studies with 14 student and professional developers, followed by surveys with 22 additional developers. We qualitatively compare categories of biases affecting developers against the traditional non-LLM workflows. Our findings suggest that LLM-related actions are more likely to be associated with novel biases. Through a systematic analysis of 90 cognitive biases specific to developer-LLM interactions, we develop a taxonomy of 15 bias categories validated by cognitive psychologists. We found that 48.8% of total programmer actions are biased, and developer-LLM interactions account for 56.4% of these biased actions. We discuss how these bias categories manifest, present tools and practices for developers, and recommendations for LLM tool builders to help mitigate cognitive biases in human-AI programming.

Related papers

• Alleviating Choice Supportive Bias in LLM with Reasoning Dependency Generation [8.918979781532036]
  We present Reasoning Dependency Generation (RDG), a novel framework for generating unbiased reasoning data.<n>RDG automatically constructs balanced reasoning QA pairs, explicitly (un)modeling the dependencies between choices, evidences, and justifications.<n>Experiments show that LLMs fine-tuned on RDG-generated data demonstrate a 81.5% improvement in memory-based experiments and 94.3% improvement in the evaluation-based experiment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-28T08:52:05Z)
• Cognitive Foundations for Reasoning and Their Manifestation in LLMs [63.12951576410617]
  Large language models (LLMs) solve complex problems yet fail on simpler variants, suggesting they achieve correct outputs through mechanisms fundamentally different from human reasoning.<n>We synthesize cognitive science research into a taxonomy of 28 cognitive elements spanning reasoning invariants, meta-cognitive controls, representations for organizing reasoning & knowledge, and transformation operations.<n>We develop test-time reasoning guidance that automatically scaffold successful structures, improving performance by up to 66.7% on complex problems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-20T18:59:00Z)
• Think Socially via Cognitive Reasoning [94.60442643943696]
  We introduce Cognitive Reasoning, a paradigm modeled on human social cognition.<n>CogFlow is a complete framework that instills this capability in LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-26T16:27:29Z)
• Is General-Purpose AI Reasoning Sensitive to Data-Induced Cognitive Biases? Dynamic Benchmarking on Typical Software Engineering Dilemmas [47.582118202259394]
  General-purpose AI (GPAI) systems may help mitigate human cognitive biases due to their non-human nature.<n>But their training on human-generated data raises a critical question: Do GPAI systems themselves exhibit cognitive biases?<n>We present the first benchmarking framework to evaluate data-induced cognitive biases in GPAI within software engineering.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-15T07:29:46Z)
• Self-Adaptive Cognitive Debiasing for Large Language Models in Decision-Making [71.71796367760112]
  Large language models (LLMs) have shown potential in supporting decision-making applications.<n>We propose a cognitive debiasing approach, self-adaptive cognitive debiasing (SACD)<n>We evaluate SACD on finance, healthcare, and legal decision-making tasks using both open-weight and closed-weight LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-05T11:23:05Z)
• Towards Objective and Unbiased Decision Assessments with LLM-Enhanced Hierarchical Attention Networks [6.520709313101523]
  This work investigates cognitive bias identification in high-stake decision making process by human experts. We propose bias-aware AI-augmented workflow that surpass human judgment. In our experiments, both the proposed model and the agentic workflow significantly improves on both human judgment and alternative models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-13T10:42:11Z)
• Kolb-Based Experiential Learning for Generalist Agents with Human-Level Kaggle Data Science Performance [81.05882480184587]
  We propose a computational framework of Kolb's learning cycle with Vygotsky's ZPD for autonomous agents.<n>Agent K is the 1st AI system to successfully integrate Kolb- and Vygotsky-inspired human cognitive learning.<n>With 9 gold, 8 silver, and 12 bronze medals level performance - including 4 gold and 4 silver on prize-awarding competitions - Agent K is the 1st AI system to successfully integrate Kolb- and Vygotsky-inspired human cognitive learning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-05T23:55:23Z)
• Diverging Preferences: When do Annotators Disagree and do Models Know? [92.24651142187989]
  We develop a taxonomy of disagreement sources spanning 10 categories across four high-level classes. We find that the majority of disagreements are in opposition with standard reward modeling approaches. We develop methods for identifying diverging preferences to mitigate their influence on evaluation and training.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-18T17:32:22Z)
• Cognitive Bias in Decision-Making with LLMs [19.87475562475802]
  Large language models (LLMs) offer significant potential as tools to support an expanding range of decision-making tasks. LLMs have been shown to inherit societal biases against protected groups, as well as be subject to bias functionally resembling cognitive bias. Our work introduces BiasBuster, a framework designed to uncover, evaluate, and mitigate cognitive bias in LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-25T02:35:56Z)

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.