Ai-Assisted Programming Tasks

Follow this topic Ask about this topic

Momentum

8 papers in the last four weeks, against 1 the four weeks before. 0.1% of all new papers.

Jul 6Week of Sep 21

Latest papers 45

Sep 24, 2026cs.HC

Guardrails or Roadblocks? Effects of Pedagogical Style and Context Awareness in AI Teaching Assistants for Programming

AI teaching assistants (AI TAs) backed by large language models (LLMs) and pedagogical guardrails are increasingly being integrated into programming courses, providing students with scalable access to hints, conceptual explanations, and code-level feedback. However, guardrails may also create friction. If students feel that the support provided is overly restrictive or poorly contextualized to their current progress, they may bypass approved tools for general-purpose LLMs. To investigate how AI TA design affects students' learning experiences, we conducted a randomized controlled trial with 132 students in an introductory programming course. Students completed three tasks related to code-writing and debugging and were randomly assigned to one of four AI TAs varied across two dimensions: pedagogical guidance style (Socratic vs. Direct instruction) and context awareness (no context vs. full context of the problem and student solution). We examined students' perceptions, interaction behaviors, and evidence of post-task comprehension. Students rated the Socratic AI TA with full context least favorably, reporting significantly lower perceived support for task completion. Descriptively, this condition also showed the highest observed interaction stress, the highest rate of external LLM use, and the lowest proportion of post-task explanations demonstrating full comprehension, though these differences were not statistically significant. These findings suggest that guardrailed AI TAs are not automatically better for learning. Instead, their effectiveness depends on how pedagogical guidance and contextual awareness are balanced in ways that students experience as useful, supportive, and worth continuing to use.

Madeleine Eastwood, Harshith Narne, Joseph Hilby +3

University of Florida Gainesville, FL, United States · University of Auckland Auckland, New Zealand

Pedagogical Frameworks Ai-Assisted Programming Tasks Assistant Context-Awareness Stress

Sep 24, 2026cs.AI

A Risk-Adaptive and Evidence-Constrained Framework for Generative AI Feedback in Programming Education

Generative artificial intelligence can turn learning analytics into personalized support, but feedback systems must decide when to intervene, which evidence to use, and how much assistance to provide. We developed a risk-adaptive, evidence-constrained framework for introductory programming using 2993 failed-submission states from 215 students. Student-disjoint models predicted persistent failure and related outcomes; four matched feedback conditions were generated for 136 cases; and calibrated risk informed capacity-limited intervention policies. The validation-selected logistic regression model achieved a test precision-recall area under the curve of 0.550 and a receiver operating characteristic area under the curve of 0.681. Broader student histories improved prediction of unmodified resubmission. After standardized repair and evidence gating, 519 of 544 newly generated messages contained all required components. A fixed-threshold sequential policy selected 17.8% of eligible test states and captured 25.2% of observed persistent failures. These findings support an evidence-gated progressive assistance strategy: calibrated risk guides intervention timing, recorded evidence constrains feedback content, and assistance progresses from self-checks to localized hints when warranted. The framework connects prediction, decision-making, and grounded generation while keeping their evaluation outcomes distinct.

Shihao Wang

Department of Education, Practice and Society, UCL Institute of Education, University College London, London, United Kingdom

Artificial Intelligence Education Feedback Ai-Assisted Programming Tasks Generative Artificial Intelligence Evidence-Grounded Questions

Sep 24, 2026cs.SE

Between the Commits: Process, Error, and Claim Reliability in a Wholly AI-Authored Codebase

We present: (i) a new dataset consisting of the full development history of a 21,000-line Python tool built entirely by Claude AI, with no human-authored code or tests, (ii) two code-provenance tracing tools, (iii) three taxonomies for instruction intent, commit provenance, and response reliability, (iv) application of these to analyse the dataset. We find that: (i) user coding agent CLI instructions differ in kind from IDE-chat instructions, with a greater focus on comprehension, planning and consultation, (ii) code development is mainly proactive, (iii) 14.3% of AI code-generation events contain a real error later caught by the AI-authored test suite, (iv) roughly 1 in 4-5 of the AI's interactive responses contains one or more factual errors.

Douglas Leith

Trinity College Dublin Dublin, Ireland

Ai-Assisted Programming Tasks Codebases Commits Generation Provenance

Sep 24, 2026cs.CL

Large Language Models for Programming: Actually Fixing or Reimplementing Incorrect Code?

Recent studies have shown that Large Language Models can effectively solve problems and fix bugs in diverse programming environments, including competitive programming. Existing approaches primarily evaluate LLM performance in problem solving or bug fixing independently, but do not explore the relationship between these two capabilities. This work focuses on determining how much the LLM deviates from a buggy solution to fix the bug compared to a human-written patch, and if there is a bias towards generating entirely new solutions. We construct a dataset with all the submissions (

\sim

3000) from a couple of users from Codeforces, and we match each buggy submission with its corresponding human fix. By using the similarity between the buggy solution and the human fix as a baseline, we evaluate the quality of LLM-generated bug fixes on 3 OpenAI GPT models (gpt-5-nano, gpt-5-mini, gpt-5.1). We check if the generated solutions solve the problem by using the Codeforces-R1 dataset, an openly available dataset that has tests generated with the DeepSeek-R1 model. Our findings suggest that LLMs tend to modify more lines than necessary compared to human fixes and, in some cases, generate entirely new solutions. We also observe that LLMs solve more problems correctly when allowed to generate solutions from scratch rather than patch buggy submissions, even when those submissions are close to the human patch. This has important implications for the design of AI-assisted programming tools, particularly in supporting user debugging processes and promoting incremental problem-solving strategies rather than solution replacement.

Alexandru Stefan Stoica, Traian Rebedea, Marian Cristian Mihaescu

University Politehnica of Bucharest Bucharest, Romania · University of Craiova Craiova, Romania

Ai-Assisted Programming Tasks Large Language Models Fail Raw Judge Outputs

Sep 15, 2026cs.HC

Does AI Assistance Leave a Temporal Fingerprint? Detecting Overreliance in AI-Assisted Writing and Programming

The rapid adoption of generative AI has made final artifacts unreliable evidence of student learning, and AI detectors that examine only the finished product are inaccurate and ethically contentious. Process data offers an alternative, but prior work covers only English essay writing. We ask whether AI assistance carries a temporal signature, whether it generalizes from writing to programming, and whether it distinguishes ordinary collaboration from wholesale delegation. We analyze three public corpora: CoAuthor (1,447 keystroke-level co-writing sessions), RealHumanEval (editor telemetry from 243 programmer records), and a pre-LLM CS1 corpus (5.1 million keystrokes) as a human-only baseline, comparing minimal-AI work, collaborative AI use, and simulated wholesale delegation. Three findings emerge. First, the signature generalizes: AI contributions arrive in bursts far outside the author's own baseline in both mediums (paired d_z = 1.13 and 3.54). Second, engagement diverges by medium: 93% of AI-inserted characters survived to writers' final documents, while only 14% of accepted code suggestions survived intact. Third, classifiers using only observable temporal features separate simulated delegation from authentic work nearly perfectly (F1

\geq

0.997; at most 0.5% of real work misclassified), while ordinary collaboration remains hard to distinguish from unassisted work. Temporal evidence flags wholesale delegation rather than assistance, positioning process visibility as a candidate evidentiary basis for academic integrity, pending validation in authentic coursework.

Eduardo Davalos, Yike Zhang

Trinity University, San Antonio, TX 78212, USA · St. Mary's University, San Antonio, TX 78228, USA

Authorship Ai-Assisted Programming Tasks Academic Integrity Ai-Assisted Writing Artificial Intelligence Systems Analytics

Sep 7, 2026cs.CR

Do AI Coding Assistants Check Before They Install? A Pre-Registered Demand-Side Audit of Trust Signals in the Research Software Supply Chain

AI coding assistants now select, install, and configure software, and attackers have exploited that position through invented package names, compromised maintainer accounts, and manipulated repository text. In response, the supply-chain community publishes machine-checkable trust signals: software bills of materials, signed releases, build provenance attestations, and declared official channels. Whether coding assistants read or act on those signals has not been measured for any of these classes on research software. We pre-registered and ran a controlled study on six open-source research software projects (three HPC, three quantum computing) drawn from an 87-project corpus, with protocol, seed, panel, and analysis plan deposited with a DOI before any trial. W created nine modified copies for each project: no signal, one per signal class, two with a signature or attestation from the wrong issuer, one with all four signals, and one reproducing documented conflicts in the project's own metadata. Three models under two ways of operating an assistant, with and without an approval step, gave 1,920 registered trials, plus a supplement on three frontier models. We scored behavior from container logs rather than from what the assistant said, and recorded the cost of every trial. Verification was rare under every condition: in 9 of 1,920 registered trials (0.5%), the assistant opened any provenance signal before installing in 0 of 384 control trials, and no trial ran a verification command, so signal presence had no measurable effect. We drew three conclusions: publishing signals is necessary but not sufficient; price did not buy verification (the model that verified most often costs

0.10 per trial; the most capable, at

1.00, verified nothing); verification must be built into the program that runs the assistant. We release the per-trial cost ledger, the protocol, and every log.

Pengyin Shan

National Center for Supercomputing Applications University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign Urbana, IL, USA

Ai-Assisted Programming Tasks Model Auditing AI Trustworthiness Ai-Based Security Evaluation Provenance+1

Sep 1, 2026cs.CL

A Dataset for Modeling Iterative Problem-Solving

Solving problems through repeated attempts is a sequential modeling task: at each step, the solver receives feedback and decides how to revise their solutions. Predicting whether performance improves, plateaus, or regresses across attempts is central to understanding any iterative problem-solving process in both human learners and autonomous agents. Beyond outcomes, modeling what errors persist and how strategies shift across attempts provides deeper insight into the mechanics of sequential learning. Studying these dynamics requires observing many solvers as they attempt, receive feedback, and revise. Programming courses with automated grading provide this setting, as students iteratively submit code to test suites and receive feedback on every attempt. We therefore curate CodeInsight, a large-scale dataset of over 3 million submissions from 3,286 undergraduates across 2 introductory C++ courses in 2 academic years, with test-case-level outcomes, timestamps, and source code. On this dataset, we build a benchmark that evaluates models spanning parametric, sequential, and generative traditions under a shared calibration-and-scoring protocol, including a Recurrent State Space Model (RSSM) adapted to track solver characteristics through discrete latent variables and an LLM-based predictor that generates explicit solutions. The adapted RSSM achieves the strongest predictive accuracy on three of the four courses. The LLM predictor is less accurate but produces full submissions at each attempt, enabling direct analysis of failure modes. We find that the model's coding proficiency is inversely related to predictive performance in this setting, with the LLM better understood as a generative solver conditioned on context rather than a faithful predictor of solver behavior. We publicly release our code and the dataset on request to facilitate future research.

Fagun Patel, Sang T. Truong, Duc Q. Nguyen +4

Stanford University · National University of Singapore

Problem Solving Capability Ai-Assisted Programming Tasks Functional Code Solvers Iterative Sequence Modeling

Sep 1, 2026cs.IT

MaskCode: Mask Transformer for Feedback-Assisted Coding With Linear Block Codes

Feedback-based coding schemes have demonstrated substantial performance gains over today's open-loop coding schemes. Unfortunately, these gains are usually achieved in idealized settings with perfect feedback. Over the last few years, machine learning-based schemes have been shown to be promising solutions for implementing feedback-based codes, particularly when combined with short-block-length open-loop error correcting codes (ECCs) in a concatenated coding structure. However, existing ML-based feedback schemes remain agnostic to the outer code's structure, potentially misallocating feedback resources on error patterns already correctable by the outer ECC. To address this, we propose MaskCode, a Transformer-based inner feedback code for concatenated coding systems, which explicitly incorporates structural knowledge of the outer linear block code into the inner feedback encoder design via two synergistic mechanisms: 1) a soft syndrome-based input that informs the encoder about potential parity constraint violations, and 2) a code-aware attention mask derived from the Tanner graph. We further show that end-to-end training with a differentiable belief propagation (BP) decoder offers no additional gain, as MaskCode's structure-aware design already internalizes the structural knowledge of the outer code; in fact, backpropagation through the iterative BP decoder introduces gradient explosion, which degrades rather than improves performance. Extensive evaluations on BCH and LDPC outer codes demonstrate that MaskCode consistently outperforms all baselines, achieving up to 1.5 dB SNR gain.

Jonggyu Jang, Hongjae Nam, Vishrant Tripathi +2

Department of Electronics Engineering, Chung-nam National University, Daejeon 34134, Republic of Korea · Elmore Family School of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907 USA · Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Seoul National University, Seoul 08826, Republic of Korea

Source-Channel Coding Error Correction Intrinsic Encoders Transformer Architectures Ai-Assisted Programming Tasks

Aug 7, 2026cs.AI

Curriculum as Code: An AI-Assisted Architecture for Instructional Design in STEM Education

Contribution: This paper presents a six-phase AI-assisted instructional design architecture based on the Curriculum as Code paradigm, integrating Generative AI with LaTeX and Python to automate the creation of reproducible, visually consistent, and technically precise materials for STEM education. Background: Creating customized instructional materials for active learning imposes a heavy workload on faculty. Standard presentation tools lack robust support for technical content, while current AI applications often hallucinate and fail to formalize the instructional authoring process, limiting their utility for rigorous academic design. Intended Outcomes: The framework aims to reduce preparation time while ensuring mathematical accuracy, adherence to institutional visual identity, and preservation of the instructor's tacit pedagogical knowledge through explicit rules. Application Design: The solution comprises a six-phase pipeline that replaces ad-hoc prompt engineering with a systematic workflow, utilizing text-based interfaces and code-driven generation (LaTeX/Beamer for slides, Python for figures), governed by pedagogical constraints, contextual calibrations, and automated review cycles. Findings: Validated over one year across 8 modules and 28 project contexts in a Project-Based Learning environment, the architecture significantly reduced instructor workload. Generated assets underwent independent peer review and were deployed by six different faculty members, confirming scalability beyond a single author. Based on over 600 voluntary student evaluations, materials achieved high quality ratings from 8.5 to 9.9/10. Results indicate high reproducibility, minimized hallucinations, and sustained pedagogical and visual fidelity, suggesting viability for broad STEM educational applications.

Henrique Mohallem Paiva

Universidade Federal de Sao Paulo (Unifesp), Rua Talim, 330, Sao Jose dos Campos (SP), Brazil, 12231-280 · Institute of Technology and Leadership (Inteli), Av. Prof. Almeida Prado, 520, Sao Paulo (SP), Brazil, 05508-901

Artificial Intelligence Education Pedagogical Frameworks Ai-Assisted Programming Tasks Curriculum Code Generation Electron Microscopy

Aug 1, 2026cs.SE

Distilling Reasoning Traces into Advisory Prompts for Software Engineering Tasks

Language models are widely used for generating and otherwise processing code (e.g., identifying code hallucinations, possible inputs, or predicting outputs); however, LLMs can make mistakes, which can be serious. One key issue is that models are trained on (still) largely human-written, and thus imperfect, code; it's not easy to find sufficiently large code corpora that are entirely free of bugs. Thus, other inference-time ways of reducing LLM errors, without additional training, are desirable. "Reasoning" or "thinking" modes, exposed as a togglable feature by hybrid reasoning models, do reduce errors; however, reasoning consumes additional resources. This paper asks if better performance can be achieved without always incurring the cost of reasoning. Human students of programming learn to avoid mistakes by (a) identifying them, (b) reflecting upon the cognitive lapses that led to them (essentially, "thinking through" the errors), (c) inferring general rules or lessons from these reflections, and (d) internalizing these lessons into rules. In tutorial sessions with an instructor, this is a common Socratic interaction. Examples of such internalizable rules might include the nugget "Before coding, restate the requirements to clarify them." Inspired by this process, this paper describes an approach where we first identify examples in which "thinking mode" in a (low-resource) LLM avoids errors. These errors, and their avoidance via "thinking" in the same LLM, are then examined by a bigger LLM to generate summary explanations; these are then summarized by a large LLM into brief advisory prompts. This approach works on many modest-sized models; in some cases, the "advisory prompts" thus learned can also be gainfully transferred to other models. We also present investigations into the nature of coding errors that language models make, and a characterization of when this approach can be helpful.

Faizan Faisal, Prem Devanbu, Toufique Ahmed

University of California, Davis · IBM

Ai-Assisted Programming Tasks Software Engineering Advice Explainable AI Methods Cognitive Load Text Corpora

Jul 30, 2026cs.HC

Human-LLM Collaborative Inductive Coding for Conceptualizing K-12 Educator AI Use

Qualitative researchers increasingly encounter interaction corpora whose scale exceeds what manual coding alone can address, and large language models (LLMs) are frequently proposed as analytic assistants. The open questions are not whether LLMs can participate in qualitative analysis but to what extent, in what phases, and under what safeguards. This article provides a detailed procedural account of a multi-phase human-LLM collaborative pipeline that adapted open, axial, and selective coding to develop a hierarchical codebook from 45,000 messages exchanged between K-12 educators and a generative AI platform. Across three phases, LLMs generated candidate labels and structured annotations at scale, while human researchers retained conceptual authority over category definitions, merging decisions, and interpretive frameworks. The resulting instrument was then tested through systematic human coding, in which three trained coders with educational domain expertise applied the codebook to an independent sample of 2,560 messages, established reliability through iterative calibration using set-valued agreement measures appropriate for multi-label annotation, and extended the instrument with five codes that the LLM-assisted phases had not surfaced. The final codebook comprises 72 items within 19 categories and six domains. We reflect on the methodological decisions the pipeline required, including the choice of a conversational unit of analysis, the treatment of the LLM as a labeling instrument rather than an interpretive agent, the measurement of intercoder agreement under multi-label coding, and the conditions under which human domain expertise remained decisive. The account is offered as an auditable template for qualitative researchers considering LLM assistance in codebook development while preserving human interpretive authority.

Alex Liu, Min Sun, Lief Esbenshade +4

College of Education, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States · Colleague AI

Qualitative Research Ai-Assisted Programming Tasks Interpretive Layer Codebooks Conversational Context

Jul 29, 2026cs.AI

Fewer Clarifications, Better Code: Benchmarking Cross-Session Personalized Ambiguity Adaptation in Coding Assistants

AI-assisted coding increasingly translates informal user intent into executable software, yet coding requests often contain ambiguities that recur in user-specific ways across tasks and sessions. Existing disambiguation methods typically address each ambiguous request in isolation within the current coding session, often through eliciting additional clarification. However, whether resolved session history from the same user can serve as memory for resolving recurring personalized ambiguity in a newly opened session remains underexplored. We formulate personalized ambiguity adaptation as a new task: given a user's previously resolved coding sessions and a new ambiguous request, an assistant should identify the recurring ambiguity pattern, produce the intended executable solution, and minimize clarification. To benchmark this task, we introduce CAPA, which characterizes personalized coding ambiguity through six mechanisms and injects these mechanisms into unambiguous executable tasks using a controlled three-stage generation pipeline. CAPA contains 600 coding sessions across 60 balanced user--ambiguity cells, including 300 held-out evaluation sessions. We evaluate 12 recent LLMs under no-history and same-user-history conditions using executable success, first-turn success, and turns-to-completion. Our analyses examine task difficulty, user identity, and memory-based history use, and we further propose same-user history gating as a lightweight inference-time method. CAPA provides a foundation for developing long-term coding assistants that better align generated code with user intent while reducing repeated clarification.

Zijian Xu, Wenshuo Zhang, Zisen Qin +4

Southeast University · The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology

Ai-Assisted Programming Tasks Ambiguity Disambiguation

Jul 27, 2026cs.SE

Learning from 53.6K Real-World Developer Edits of AI-Generated Code

Imperfections in AI-generated code require that software developers modify the generated code manually, or by re-prompting an AI programming assistant. Manual code edits provide more realistic and granular information on editing behavior than Git commits, which only contain final successful code snippets. Yet, due to a lack of high-quality, realistic code editing data, LLMs are mostly trained on publicly available Git data (e.g., commits). To address this gap, we introduce DECODE (Developer Edits of Code Dataset), a dataset of 53.6K real-world in-IDE code edits of AI-generated code in Python, TypeScript, and JavaScript, sourced from 1K+ developers. First, we demonstrate the utility of DECODE for data analysis, obtaining insights on when, why, and how AI-generated code is edited. We find that most edits occur within the first 15 minutes after accepting an AI completion, resulting in the removal of AI completions in 31% of edit trajectories. Second, we use DECODE to benchmark the ability of LLMs to predict code edits. We find that finetuning on DECODE enables open-source 3B models to perform code edit prediction tasks significantly better than frontier LLMs. We then discuss implications of this work, emphasizing the necessity of developer-centric machine learning approaches for future AI programming assistants.

Jenny T. Liang, Mihika Bairathi, Wayne Chi +3

Carnegie Mellon University

Ai-Assisted Programming Tasks Code Generation Code Completion Edit

Jul 24, 2026cs.HC

Beyond Perspectives: A Trio-Ethnography of Interpretation Evolution in LLM-Supported Programming Education

Generative AI is reshaping programming education, yet educators often infer students' AI-supported learning from classroom observations alone. This experience report presents a trio-ethnography involving two computing educators with different teaching philosophies and one undergraduate computer science student to examine how these interpretations evolve through dialogue. Across three conversations, the educators reflected on students' AI use, discussed changes to programming pedagogy, and revisited their assumptions after engaging with the student's lived experiences. Rather than simply confirming or contradicting the educators' perspectives, the student's narratives revealed learning processes that were largely invisible in the classroom, prompting both educators to reconsider assumptions about AI use, assessment, transparency, and programming instruction. We argue that trio-ethnography offers a valuable reflective approach for helping computing educators move beyond observable student behaviors toward a richer understanding of AI-supported learning and for informing instructional adaptation in the era of generative AI.

Jennie Ren, Jordan H. McDowell, Kyrie Zhixuan Zhou

Mercer University United States · University of Texas at San Antonio United States

Ai-Assisted Programming Tasks Perspective

Jul 12, 2026cs.CY

The Hitchhiker's Guide to Monoculture: AI Homogenizes Syntax, Not (Necessarily) Semantics

Large language models (LLMs) have been widely reported to homogenize human expression and thought. However, I argue that convergence in language need not imply convergence in ideas, and existing evidence rarely distinguishes between the two. I demonstrate this through a study of software development, where AI assistants have diffused fastest and where syntax can be readily separated from semantics (conceptual approach or intent). Using Kaggle contest submissions from 2019 to mid-2026, I first document convergence toward the random seed value 42, consistent with LLMs reinforcing a longstanding programming-culture convention associated with Douglas Adams' comedy novel The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. I then measure homogenization in code syntax and approach more generally, quantifying within-contest code submission similarity using term-frequency-inverse-document-frequency (TF-IDF) n-gram representations, which capture surface syntax, and Voyage code-3 retrieval embeddings, which capture intent and approach. Submissions have become more alike in literal syntax, but I find no evidence of homogenization in approach or intent. I conclude that shared AI tools are homogenizing how Kaggle contestants express their solutions, not the problem-solving strategies they employ.

Gordon Burtch

Boston University

Ai-Assisted Programming Tasks Syntactic Structure Guidance Journey

Jul 12, 2026cs.SE

Commenting with Copilot: A Taxonomy and Multi-Year Analysis of Student Code-Generation Specifications

As AI code tools become integrated into programming environments, students increasingly describe intended behavior in natural language and rely on these tools to generate code, shifting emphasis from code writing to specification. Yet little is known about the comments students write as specifications in AI-assisted programming tasks. We analyze a four-year dataset of undergraduate programming submissions and reflections from tasks in which students wrote comments to guide code generation and refined solutions using test-case feedback. We introduce a taxonomy spanning three dimensions: comment type, code expression level, and code construct. Using automated classification, we examine how these dimensions vary across attempts and how students describe the process in their reflections. Our findings show that students mostly wrote natural-language What comments, shifted toward How comments for more procedural constructs, and focused more on verifying generated code than on repeatedly rewriting comments.

Nasser Giacaman, Valerio Terragni, Paul Denny +1

University of Auckland · Auckland, New Zealand · University of New South Wales +1

Ai-Assisted Programming Tasks Code Generation Copilot Taxonomy Expression Longitudinal Data

Jul 10, 2026cs.SE

Git-Assistant: Planning-Based Support for Updating Git Repositories

Version control systems are essential for collaborative software development, yet tools like git remain challenging for many practitioners. Recent advances in Large Language Models (LLMs) offer promising capabilities for interpreting developer intent, but their effectiveness in repository management tasks is limited by the need for formal reasoning. This work introduces Git-Assistant, an AI-based assistant that combines LLMs with automated planning to support developers in executing non-trivial git operations. The assistant analyzes repository context, translates natural language requests into actionable command sequences, and incorporates planning techniques to ensure correctness and safety. We present a systematic evaluation methodology using synthetic and randomized git environments, comparing the performance of LLM-only and planning-augmented variants across multiple metrics. Experimental results demonstrate that integrating formal reasoning with LLMs improves reliability and reduces errors in repository management, highlighting the potential of hybrid AI approaches for intelligent developer assistance.

Alfredo Garrachón Ruiz, Tomás de la Rosa, Daniel Borrajo

AI Research, JPMorganChase

Ai-Assisted Programming Tasks Reproducibility

Jul 9, 2026cs.SE

The Patchwork Problem in LLM-Generated Code

LLM-generated code often compiles, passes tests, and appears correct, yet breaks once deployed. The root cause is frequently structural rather than logical. A generated endpoint references configuration keys never declared in the project, an import targets a package that does not exist in any registry, or a new route omits the authentication guard applied to every sibling endpoint. Each patch is locally valid but globally incoherent, and standard CI toolchains rarely surface these failures. As LLM-powered coding tools see widespread adoption, this blind spot poses a growing risk to software quality. We call this the \textbf{patchwork problem}. This paper formalizes structural coherence as consistency invariants over graph representations of repository artifacts, including import, call, dependency, configuration, schema, resource, control-flow, and routing graphs, and introduces an eight-category failure taxonomy distinguishing defects specific to LLM generation from those merely amplified by it. We present a hybrid verification framework that delegates to mature static analysis tools where they already excel and deploys purpose-built detectors for cross-cutting invariants underserved by existing toolchains, targeting provable constraint violations rather than heuristic pattern matching. Empirical evaluation across two frontier models under four prompting strategies reveals that the vast majority of structural failures evade type checking, testing, and SAST entirely, and that failure patterns diverge qualitatively between models in ways that challenge model-agnostic mitigation strategies. External validation on real-world AI-generated repositories confirms that these failures are not artifacts of controlled experimentation but are prevalent wherever LLMs write code with minimal human oversight.

Viraaji Mothukuri, Reza M. Parizi

Decentralized Science Lab, College of Computing and Software Engineering Kennesaw State University, GA, USA

Ai-Assisted Programming Tasks Verification Framework

Jul 9, 2026cs.AI

Compete Then Collaborate: Frontier AI Teachers Build a Verifiable Curriculum to Improve a Coding Student Beyond Imitation

Large language models increasingly serve as teachers generating training data for smaller students. Prior multi-teacher knowledge distillation methods merge outputs without determining which frontier model teaches best, often relying on an LLM judge biased toward its own outputs. We introduce a compete-then-collaborate framework where four frontier AI teachers (Claude, Codex-GPT, Grok, Gemini) are ranked head-to-head by an execution-based judge (unit tests and stdin-stdout checks) with fairness controls, and then collaborate to build a verifiable curriculum for a student (Qwen2.5-Coder). We report three findings. (1) Under execution verification, all teachers solve standard problems near-perfectly after self-correction (99-100%) due to a saturation effect, but harder competition problems separate them (Gemini 77% > Claude 69% = Codex 69% > Grok 50%); however, the robust student-side results do not depend on teacher ranking. (2) Imitation (SFT) on verified solutions does not improve, and can degrade, an already-competent student at 7B and 32B (e.g., from 76.7% to 72.7% on MBPP-test, and 5.9% to 2.9% on competition problems). (3) Using the same collaborative curriculum as a reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) environment improves the student (from 5.9% to 8.8% peak on competition problems, a +49% relative gain), reversing SFT's direction. The value of AI-teacher collaboration lies not in pooling answers to imitate, but in jointly constructing a verifiable environment where the student learns by doing. We release a reproducible on-prem pipeline (NVIDIA GB10) with framework patches for running GRPO on a bleeding-edge stack.

Miseong Shawn Kim

Genesis Cortex AI Inc.

Artificial Intelligence Education Curriculum Teacher-Student Distillation Ai-Assisted Programming Tasks Competition Collaboration+1

Jun 30, 2026cs.AI

Constructing Epistemic AI Literacy: Detecting Epistemic Aims and Processes in Student-AI Co-Programming

Epistemic thinking plays a central role in students' learning processes when applying generative artificial intelligence (GenAI), particularly in programming contexts where learners must construct queries, evaluate and validate AI-generated outputs, and regulate problem-solving strategies. This study introduces the conceptual framework of Epistemic AI Literacy (EAIL), reframing AI literacy as a process-oriented epistemic phenomenon that emerges through dynamic human-AI interactions across different domains. Drawing on the AIR (epistemic aims, ideals and reliable epistemic processes) framework, this study examines how epistemic aims and epistemic processes are enacted in GenAI-supported co-programming activities and explores scalable approaches for operationalizing these constructs in interaction data. Using a large dialogue dataset of human-AI co-programming, this study identifies observable dimensions of epistemic aims (i.e., mastery-oriented aims) and epistemic processes (i.e., outsourcing, explanation seeking, verification seeking, prompt monitoring, and epistemic justification). The results reveal a prevalent lack of EAIL, with 78.8% of student-GenAI interactions relying on non-mastery-oriented aims and less reliable epistemic strategies like outsourcing and verification-seeking. Conversely, only 11.1% of interactions showed high epistemic engagement, where mastery-oriented aims were coupled with advanced epistemic strategies like epistemic justification in a more reliable epistemic process.

Mengqian Wu

™McGill University, Quebec, Canada

Artificial Intelligence Literacy Epistemic Integrity Ai-Assisted Programming Tasks Generative Artificial Intelligence

Jun 29, 2026cs.HC

To Tab or Not to Tab: Measuring Critical Engagement in AI Code Completion Tools Using Behavioral Signals and Attention Checks

AI code completion tools, such as Github Copilot, provide students with code suggestions to help them write programs. However, recent qualitative studies suggest that students fail to critically evaluate these suggestions. We present Clover, a code completion tool that logs students' interactions with code suggestions and additionally offers attention checks to probe reflective engagement during programming tasks. We also develop a taxonomy of behavioral interaction metrics for AI-assisted programming, informed by literature. We analyzed relationships between interaction patterns, engagement with attention checks, and task performance. We observed that higher rates of tab accept were associated with lower attention check performance, while increased dwell time was associated with higher attention check performance. We conclude by discussing how programming process data and attention checks might support reflective engagement in AI-assisted programming.

Jessica Hutchison, Ian Tyler Applebaum, Kenneth Angelikas +6

Temple University Philadelphia, USA

Ai-Assisted Programming Tasks Reflections Clover

Jun 27, 2026cs.HC

Exploring the Value of Diverse LLM Explanations in Introductory Programming

Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown the potential to generate code explanations that surpass those of peers in quality, offering promising opportunities for computer science education. While these explanations may not yet match the depth and clarity of instructor-provided explanations, research in computational creativity highlights that the quantity and diversity of ideas can often outweigh a singular focus on quality. Inspired by this, we explore whether combining multiple diverse explanations, each emphasizing distinct aspects (e.g., function, concept, goal), can enhance students' understanding of programming exercises compared to generic explanations that do not emphasize distinct conceptual aspects. In our study 971 first-year computing students were randomly assigned either diverse or generic LLM-generated explanations for two programming exercises. Students completed multiple-choice and open-ended questions for each exercise, followed by Likert-scale questions and open-ended reflections. Our findings outline patterns in student performance and perceived cognitive load across the two explanation conditions. These findings highlight how variation in explanation emphasis may relate to learner engagement and understanding. Across participants, open-ended response accuracy was consistently about 7.7% higher when students received diverse explanations, with no difference in perceived cognitive load.

Seth Bernstein, Paul Denny, Juho Leinonen +4

Temple University Philadelphia, PA, United States · University of Auckland Auckland, New Zealand · Aalto University Espoo, Finland

Ai-Assisted Programming Tasks Computer Science Explainable AI Methods Creativity Value

Jun 22, 2026cs.AI

AI-Assisted Help-Seeking Trajectories in Programming Education from an SRL-Informed Perspective

Generative AI tools provide novice programmers with instant, personalized support, but also raise concerns about whether AI use supports or bypasses students' regulation of problem-solving. Existing work has largely focused on correctness, usability, or overall usage frequency, with less attention to how student--AI help-seeking unfolds. This study addresses this gap by analyzing AI-assisted help-seeking trajectories in university-level programming. Using an SRL-informed analytical framework that links prompt-level help-seeking codes to conceptual, implementation, debugging, and reflective forms of support, we analyzed 1,290 task-specific student prompts linked to 17,190 code submissions from 71 students in introductory Python programming courses. Specifically, we examined how help-seeking interactions were structured across turns and attempts, and how trajectory patterns related to task scores and the number of code submissions. Results indicate that many students primarily used AI for reactive troubleshooting rather than for planned, self-regulated problem-solving. Although trajectory patterns were not associated with significant differences in task scores, they differed substantially in the number of code submissions required. These findings suggest that the educational significance of AI support lies not only in whether students use AI, but in how their help-seeking trajectories develop during programming problem-solving.

Boxuan Ma, Huiyong Li, Gen Li +3

Faculty of Arts and Science, Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan. · Research Institute for Information Technology, Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan. · Faculty of Information Science and Electrical Engineering, Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan. +1

Ai-Assisted Programming Tasks Artificial Intelligence Education Ai-Based

Jun 20, 2026cs.CL

NL2Scratch: An Executable Benchmark and Evaluation for Block-Based Programming

Block-based programming environments such as Scratch are widely used in early programming education, yet natural-language-to-code (NL2Code) research has focused primarily on text-based languages. Scratch programs are event-driven, visually compositional, and distributed across concurrent scripts, making conventional NL2Code assumptions and evaluation insufficient. We introduce NL2Scratch, an executable benchmark for natural-language-to-Scratch generation comprising 311,648 parser-valid NL--program pairs, whose program side is extracted from real Scratch projects and paired with semantically aligned NL descriptions. For reliable evaluation beyond surface overlap, we propose Semantic Alignment Consistency (SAC), an interpretable slot-level metric for measuring semantic agreement between descriptions and programs. With SAC, we construct a semantically validated pool of 23,594 examples, and a slot-balanced 800 diagnostic benchmark. Experiments across instruction-tuned and fine-tuned LLMs reveal a notable gap between lexical similarity and semantic alignment: models achieving token-level F1 above 0.93 often fail to attain perfect SAC, particularly on longer examples. Errors concentrate on operational slots like actions, conditions, and numeric arguments, exposing failure modes largely invisible under conventional metrics.

Heejin Do, Alexandre Ballenghien, Yang Wu +1

Department of Computer Science, ETH Zurich · ETH AI Center

Ai-Assisted Programming Tasks Code Generation

Jun 15, 2026cs.SE

Vibe Coding Ate My Homework: An evaluation of AI approaches to greenfield software engineering and programming

Thanks to rapid developments in generative AI, we are in the midst of a paradigm shift that may change how we interact with computers forever. We have observed a growth in the use of natural language prompts to build applications and coding infrastructures without underlying knowledge of the field, and this practice has been dubbed `vibe coding.' It arguably represents what the field of programming has been building towards since the beginning, with every higher level of abstraction that is conceived. Vibe coding promises to be the endpoint for the meta of high-level programming as far as method of input is concerned: eliminating a human's use of code syntax entirely in favour of programming in their mother tongue. This paper aims to evaluate the viability of vibe coding for greenfield software engineering tasks, as well as analyse the benchmarks that have been used to measure its software engineering prowess. To this end, we have developed an evaluation suite for analysing an LLM's proficiency in carrying out simple, isolated greenfield programming tasks in Python to provide scoped insight on the matter.

Callum Barbour

Vibe Coding Ai-Assisted Programming Tasks Software Engineering Generative Artificial Intelligence

Jun 12, 2026cs.SE

Simulating Students' Java Programming Errors with Large Language Models

Understanding student errors in the programming is a cornerstone of programming education, yet obtaining a representative set of student errors for any newly designed task remains slow and costly, since authentic submissions only accumulate after extensive classroom deployment. This paper explores whether large language models (LLMs) can serve as scalable proxies for students by simulating realistic logical errors in code submissions. Using the CodeWorkout dataset of 74,000+ unique student Java submissions across 37 problems, we evaluate five LLMs under three mainstream prompting strategies: Input-Output (IO), Chain-of-Thought (CoT), and iterative Self-Refine. We assess performance along two key dimensions: diversity (the range of distinct error patterns) and alignment (alignment with authentic student mistakes), and examine how these vary by struggling level of programming tasks. Our quantitative findings reveal that while all models generate diverse errors, their alignment to human submissions diverges: Claude Sonnet 4 achieves the most balanced performance. In addition, we conducted a blinded expert annotation study (N = 401) comparing synthetic and authentic errors. This qualitative analysis confirms that the generated errors are functionally indistinguishable from authentic student errors. Moreover, higher-struggling-level problems elicit more diverse but less student-like errors. These results highlight trade-offs in using LLMs to simulate human learners and suggest design considerations for integrating synthetic errors into teachable agents, intelligent tutoring systems, and large-scale learning analytics.

Ali Keramati, Jie Cao, Iman Mohammadi +2

Utah State University

Ai-Assisted Programming Tasks User Simulation Prompt Engineering

Jun 2, 2026cs.CY

AI-Generated Traces for Novice Programmers: Learning Effects and Learner Differences in a Multi-Institutional Study

Introductory programming (CS1) courses often struggle to support students' understanding of program execution. While visualizations can make execution processes explicit, their effectiveness depends on design and context, and empirical evidence for AI-generated visualizations remains limited. We propose Generated Animated Traces (GATs), AI-generated, analogy-based, narrated animations that coordinate source code, execution state, and conceptual analogies. We conduct a study at two institutions in CS1 courses (Python, N=961; Java N=151) comparing GATs to textual explanations. We measure immediate learning performance and experience, end-of-course engagement and exam performance. Results show that GATs can yield selective benefits for immediate learning, but benefits are context-dependent and short-term. We observe that GATs' influence on performance is moderated by learner engagement profiles. This finding underscores the importance of personalized approaches.

Yuri Noviello, Naaz Sibia, Anastasiia Birillo +3

Delft University of Technology Delft, Netherlands · University of Toronto Toronto, Canada · JetBrains Research Belgrade, Serbia +1

Ai-Assisted Programming Tasks Traces Multi-Model Study Impact Analysis

May 28, 2026cs.CR

Minimal Prompt Perturbations Lead to Code Vulnerabilities: Prompt Fragility and Hidden-State Signals in Coding LLMs

LLM-based coding assistants are seeing rapid adoption, offering substantial gains in developer productivity. As organizations increasingly ship code these agents produce, the security of that code becomes critical. Prior work has shown that minor prompt perturbations degrade the functional correctness of LLM-generated code, but whether they also compromise code security has remained unstudied. We apply token-level mutations to prompts across three models and five programming languages, and show that mutations as small as a single-character change can flip generated code from secure to vulnerable. Probing the models' hidden states reveals that this fragility is partially encoded in prompt representations, but unevenly so. Input-handling vulnerabilities, where the model omits validation or sanitization, are more predictable (mean AUC 0.753) than secure-defaults vulnerabilities, where insecure code stems from one local choice such as a weak algorithm or unsafe parameter (mean AUC 0.674). These results show that the threat model for LLM-assisted coding extends beyond prompt injection to ordinary prompt variation, and indicate that input-handling flaws can be caught before generation while secure-defaults flaws require intervention during decoding.

Alexander Sternfeld, Andrei Kucharavy, Ljiljana Dolamic

IEM, HES-SO, Le Foyer, Techno-Pôle 1, Sierre, Switzerland · Cyber-Defence Campus, armasuisse Science and Technology, Thun, Switzerland

Vulnerable Code Ai-Assisted Programming Tasks Large Language Model Safety Large Language Models Fail Fragility Token-Level Uncertainty+1

May 27, 2026cs.AI

When Models Disagree: Rethinking LLM Evaluation for Public Comment Analysis

Federal agencies are deploying large language models (LLMs) to categorize public comment corpora, where the model's organization of the record shapes what policymakers see and which arguments register. Standard evaluation, anchored on stance accuracy against a small validated set, cannot detect when different models produce materially different categorizations of the same public input. We propose an Interpretive Audit Pipeline that treats multi-model disagreement as diagnostic of interpretive complexity and directs human review toward genuinely ambiguous public input. Analyzing 1,260 public comments on a federal USDA docket across four LLMs, we find that inter-model thematic divergence exceeds within-model prompt variation, and that an expert rubric suppresses deep interpretive disagreement without resolving it. In a two-stage labeling study on a stratified 40-comment subsample, four LLMs and a human annotator labeled independently and then revised after seeing the others' labels. Revision behavior varied across labelers, and the human annotator's revisions frequently introduced framings absent from the ensemble's collective output. We argue disagreement-based evaluation is a necessary complement to accuracy metrics for LLM-assisted interpretive coding.

Aisha Najera, Alvin Moon, Vedant Srinivasan +1

AI Lab, Princeton University · Engineering and Applied Sciences, RAND Corporation · Science, Technology, and International Affairs, Georgetown University

Large Language Model Evaluation Disagreement Model Auditing Ai-Assisted Programming Tasks Text Corpora

May 20, 2026cs.HC

Exploring the Effectiveness of Using LLMs for Automated Assessment of Student Self Explanations in Programming Education

Worked examples are step-by-step solutions to problems in a specific domain, offered to students to acquire domain-specific problem-solving skills. The effectiveness of worked examples could be enhanced by combining them with self-explanations, which ask students to explain rather than passively study each problem-solving step. The main challenge of this approach is assessing the correctness of the student's explanations. In the prevailing approach, student explanations are judged by their semantic similarity to an instructor's or domain expert's explanation. Given recent advances in LLM-based automated scoring, it remains unclear whether semantic similarity methods are still the most effective technique to automatically score textual student responses like essays or code explanations. Comparing these methods also requires quality datasets that offer distinctive features such as balanced class distributions and domain-specific labeled data for automated scoring tasks. In this paper, we present a rigorous comparison between LLMs and semantic similarity used for automated scoring, framed as a binary classification task.

Arun-Balajiee Lekshmi-Narayanan, Mohammad Hassany, Peter Brusilovsky

University of Pittsburgh

Ai-Assisted Programming Tasks Explainable AI Methods Similarity and Metrics

May 19, 2026cs.HC

Using Biometrics to Understand AI-Assisted Coding Performance and its Perception

AI-based code assistants are transforming software development, yet we lack empirical evidence on how they affect developers' cognitive processes. We present a multisite study investigating the neurophysiological correlates of AI-assisted programming through a within-subjects crossover design. We recruited participants at two universities (Bari, Italy, and Copenhagen, Denmark) and collected electroencephalography, eye-tracking, electrodermal activity, and heart rate variability data alongside a rubric-based performance score and self-reported workload across six dimensions using the NASA Task Load Index (NASA-TLX). We tested four hypotheses addressing physiological differences between AI-assisted and non-assisted conditions, the moderating role of developer experience, the association between physiology and performance, and the alignment between subjective perceptions and objective measures. Under AI assistance, the EEG

θ/α

ratio was lower during the first task and the gaze blink rate was higher during the second, both consistent with reduced cognitive engagement when developers offload generative effort to the model. This pattern did not differ between undergraduate and graduate students. Electrodermal activity correlated with performance under the non-AI condition but not under AI. Among the six NASA-TLX dimensions of self-reported workload, only Physical demand was associated with performance under the non-AI condition but not under AI. These findings suggest that AI-assisted programming is not a faster version of solo coding but a cognitively distinct activity, with implications for the design of AI assistants and for biometric monitoring in AI-augmented development.

Paolo Burelli, Fabio Calefato, Daniela Grassi +5

IT University of Copenhagen, Denmark · University of Bari, Italy

Ai-Assisted Programming Tasks Cognitive Load Ai-Based Neuroscience Cognitive Science Code Optimization+2

May 12, 2026cs.CY

An Explainable AI Assistant for Introductory Programming Education: Improving Feedback Reliability with Instructor-AI Collaboration

Active learning is widely recognized as an effective approach for improving learning outcomes in introductory programming courses. However, insufficient instructional support often limits students' access to timely, personalized feedback, which is crucial for mastering foundational programming concepts. Although recent advances in AI, particularly large language models, offer scalable opportunities for feedback, concerns about explainability and reliability remain. In this paper, we present an AI-driven classroom assistant that leverages an explainable AI model to analyze student code, map logical errors to instructor-identified misconceptions, and deliver instructor-authored feedback, thereby grounding reliability in instructor-defined pedagogical knowledge. To evaluate the effectiveness of our framework, we conducted an expert evaluation to examine its alignment with instructor-verified feedback and deployed the system in a classroom setting to assess students' perceptions of its usability. Results indicate that the assistant can provide accurate, instructor-verified feedback to students while fostering a positive experience.

Muntasir Hoq, Griffin Pitts, Bradford Mott +6

North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA · University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA

Artificial Intelligence Education Ai-Assisted Programming Tasks Tutors Pedagogical Frameworks Feedback Active Learning

May 8, 2026cs.SE

Prompt Engineering Strategies for LLM-based Qualitative Coding of Psychological Safety in Software Engineering Communities: A Controlled Empirical Study

Qualitative analysis plays a pivotal role in understanding the human and social aspects of software engineering. However, it remains a demanding process shaped by the subjective interpretation of individual researchers and sensitive to methodological choices such as prompt design. Recent advancements in Large Language Models (LLMs) offer promising opportunities to support this type of analysis, although their reliability in reproducing human qualitative reasoning under varying prompting conditions remains largely untested. This study presents a controlled empirical evaluation of three LLMs -- Claude Haiku, DeepSeek-Chat, and Gemini 2.5 Flash -- across two prompt engineering strategies (zero-shot and multi-shot closed coding), using Cohen's kappa as the primary agreement metric over ten independent runs per configuration. Results suggest that multi-shot prompting significantly improves agreement for Claude Haiku (Delta kappa = +0.034, Wilcoxon p = 0.004) but not for DeepSeek-Chat or Gemini 2.5 Flash. Intra-model stability varies substantially -- DeepSeek-Chat and Claude Haiku exhibit the lowest variance (SD approx. 0.017), while Gemini 2.5 Flash is the least stable (SD = 0.038). A systematic over-prediction of "Sharing Negative Feedback" is identified across all models (bias ratios up to 5.25x), alongside consistent under-prediction of "Expressing Concerns." Collectively, these findings provide empirical evidence for prompt engineering guidelines in LLM-assisted qualitative coding for software engineering research.

Moaath Alshaikh, Tasneem Alshaher, Ricardo Vieira +7

Federal University of Bahia · State University of Feira de Santana · Federal University of Sergipe +1

Qualitative Research Ai-Assisted Programming Tasks Software Engineering Empirical Study Deepseek

May 7, 2026cs.SE

An Empirical Study of Proactive Coding Assistants in Real-World Software Development

Large language model (LLM)-based coding assistants have made substantial progress, yet most systems remain reactive, requiring developers to explicitly formulate their needs. Proactive coding assistants aim to infer latent developer intent from integrated development environment (IDE) interactions and repository context, thereby reducing interaction overhead and supporting more seamless assistance. However, research in this direction is limited by the scarcity of large-scale real-world developer behavior data. Existing studies therefore often rely on LLM-simulated IDE traces, whose fidelity to real development behavior remains unclear. In this paper, we investigate this simulation-to-reality gap through a large-scale empirical study. We collect real IDE interaction traces from 1{,}246 experienced industry developers over three consecutive days using a custom Visual Studio Code extension, and construct paired LLM-simulated traces for controlled comparison. Our analysis shows that simulated traces differ substantially from real traces in behavioral diversity, temporal structure, and exploratory patterns. Based on the collected data, we introduce \textbf{ProCodeBench}, a real-world benchmark for proactive intent prediction. Experiments with representative LLMs, retrieval-augmented methods, and agentic baselines show that current approaches remain far from reliable under real IDE traces, suggesting that simulation-based evaluation can overestimate real-world performance. Finally, our training study shows that simulated data cannot replace real data, but can complement it when used before real-world fine-tuning. These findings highlight the importance of real developer behavior data for evaluating and training proactive coding assistants.

Lehui Li, Ruixuan Jia, Guo-Ye Yang +1

College of AI, Tsinghua University, China · Fitten Tech Co., Ltd., China

Ai-Assisted Programming Tasks User Simulation Software Engineering Empirical Study Traces Single-Agent Baselines+1

May 1, 2026cs.SE

RECAP: An End-to-End Platform for Capturing, Replaying, and Analyzing AI-Assisted Programming Interactions

Understanding how developers interact with AI coding assistants requires more than chat logs or git histories in isolation; it requires reconstructing the full context: which prompt led to which edit, what the developer tried and discarded, and how their strategy evolved over time. We present RECAP (Replay and Examine Captured AI Programming), an open-source platform that (1) passively records AI chat sessions and fine-grained code edits inside VS Code without disrupting the developer's workflow, (2) merges them into a unified timeline for interactive session replay, and (3) exposes an extensible analysis layer, with example modules for behavioral classification and AI reliance measurement. Deployed in a university software engineering course, RECAP captured 2,034 prompts and 8,239 code edits from 41 students across a multi-week project. We demonstrate how the platform's linked data and replay capabilities enable analyses of developer-AI interaction patterns that no single data source could support.

Keyu He, Qianou Ma, Valerie Chen +2

Carnegie Mellon University

Ai-Assisted Programming Tasks Ai-Based Replay

Apr 29, 2026cs.AI

Unpacking Vibe Coding: Help-Seeking Processes in Student-AI Interactions While Programming

Generative AI is reshaping higher education programming through vibe coding, where students collaborate with AI via natural language rather than writing code line-by-line. We conceptualize this practice as help-seeking, analyzing 19,418 interaction turns from 110 undergraduate students. Using inductive coding and Heterogeneous Transition Network Analysis, we examined interaction sequences to compare top- and low-performing students. Results reveal that top performers engaged in instrumental help-seeking -- inquiry and exploration -- eliciting tutor-like AI responses. In contrast, low performers relied on executive help-seeking, frequently delegating tasks and prompting the AI to assume an executor role focused on ready-made solutions. These findings indicate that currently generative AI mirrors student intent (whether productive or passive) rather than optimizing for learning. To evolve from tools to teammates, AI systems must move beyond passive compliance. We argue for pedagogically aligned design that detect unproductive delegation and adaptively steer educational interactions toward inquiry, ensuring student-AI partnerships augment rather than replace cognitive effort.

Daiana Rinja, Eduardo Araujo Oliveira, Sonsoles López-Pernas +3

CATALPA, FernUniversität in Hagen, 58097 Hagen, Germany · School of Computing and Information Systems, University of Melbourne, Parkville VIC 3010, Australia · School of Computing, University of Eastern Finland, 80110 Joensuu, Finland

Ai-Assisted Programming Tasks Vibe Coding Generative Artificial Intelligence Interaction Data

Apr 28, 2026cs.CL

MAIC-UI: Making Interactive Courseware with Generative UI

Creating interactive STEM courseware traditionally requires HTML/CSS/JavaScript expertise, leaving barriers for educators. While generative AI can produce HTML codes, existing tools generate static presentations rather than interactive simulations, struggle with long documents, and lack pedagogical accuracy mechanisms. Furthermore, full regeneration for modifications requires 200--600 seconds, disrupting creative flow. We present MAIC-UI, a zero-code authoring system that enables educators to create and rapidly edit interactive courseware from textbooks, PPTs, and PDFs. MAIC-UI employs: (1) structured knowledge analysis with multi-modal understanding to ensure pedagogical rigor; (2) a two-stage generate-verify-optimize pipeline separating content alignment from visual refinement; and (3) Click-to-Locate editing with Unified Diff-based incremental generation achieving sub-10-second iteration cycles. A controlled lab study with 40 participants shows MAIC-UI reduces editing iterations (4.9 vs. 7.0) and significantly improves learnability and controllability compared to direct Text-to-HTML generation. A three-month classroom deployment with 53 high school students demonstrates that MAIC-UI fosters learning agency and reduces outcome disparities -- the pilot class achieved 9.21-point gains in STEM subjects compared to -2.32 points in control classes. Our code is available at https://github.com/THU-MAIC/MAIC-UI.

Shangqing Tu, Yanjia Li, Keyu Chen +7

Tsinghua University · Guangzhou University · Zhejiang University

Interactive Learning Pedagogical Frameworks Generative User Interface Ai-Assisted Programming Tasks Generative Artificial Intelligence Electron Microscopy

Apr 25, 2026cs.HC

Scalable LLM-based Coding of Dialogue in Healthcare Simulation: Balancing Coding Performance, Processing Time, and Environmental Impact

Research shows that dialogue, the interactive process through which participants articulate their thinking, plays a central role in constructing shared understanding, coordinating action, and shaping learning outcomes in teams. Analysing dialogue content has been central to advancing team learning theory and informing the design of computer-supported collaborative learning environments, yet this progress has depended on labour-intensive qualitative coding. LLMs offer new possibilities for automating and enhancing the dialogue layer within emerging multimodal learning analytics approaches, with recent studies showing that they can approximate human coding through few-shot prompting. However, prior work has focused on replicating human coding accuracy for research purposes, rather than addressing a more educationally consequential question: how can we design prompts that allow an LLM to label team dialogue accurately and fast enough to be useful in real settings, such as in-person healthcare simulations, where results must be returned quickly and computational cost and sustainability also matter? This paper investigates how prompt design and batching strategies can be optimised to balance coding accuracy, processing time, and environmental impact in team-based healthcare simulation debriefing. Using a dataset of 11,647 utterances coded across 6 dialogue constructs, we compared 4 prompt designs across varying batch sizes, evaluating coding performance, processing time, and energy consumption, as well as the trade-offs between these metrics. Results indicate that increasing batch size improves speed and reduces energy use, but negatively impacts coding performance. Beyond demonstrating the feasibility of LLM-based qualitative analysis, this study offers practical guidance for scaling dialogue analytics in contexts where timeliness, privacy, and sustainability are critical.

Kiyoshige Garces, Gloria Milena Fernandez-Nieto, Linxuan Zhao +4

RMIT University · Monash University · Adelaide University +2

Simulated Patients Dialogue Benchmarks Large Language Models(Llms Ai-Assisted Programming Tasks Dialogue Code Optimization+1

Apr 20, 2026cs.HC

Choose Your Own Adventure: Non-Linear AI-Assisted Programming with EvoGraph

Current AI-assisted programming tools are predominantly linear and chat-based, which deviates from the iterative and branching nature of programming itself. Our preliminary study with developers using AI assistants suggested that they often struggle to explore alternatives, manage prompting sequences, and trace changes. Informed by these insights, we created EvoGraph, an IDE plugin that integrates AI interactions and code changes as a lightweight and interactive development graph. EvoGraph automatically records a branching AI-assisted coding history and allows developers to manipulate the graph to compare, merge, and revisit prior collaborative AI programming states. Our user study with 20 participants revealed that EvoGraph addressed developers' challenges identified in our preliminary study while imposing lower cognitive load. Participants also found the graph-based representation supported safe exploration, efficient iteration, and reflection on AI-generated changes. Our work highlights design opportunities for tools to help developers make sense of and act on their problem-solving progress in the emerging AI-mediated programming context.

Vassilios Exarhakos, Jinghui Cheng, Jin L. C. Guo

McGill University Montreal, Quebec, Canada · Polytechnique Montreal Montreal, Quebec, Canada

Ai-Assisted Programming Tasks Nonlinearity

Apr 17, 2026cs.SE

CodeMMR: Bridging Natural Language, Code, and Image for Unified Retrieval

Code search, framed as information retrieval (IR), underpins modern software engineering and increasingly powers retrieval-augmented generation (RAG), improving code discovery, reuse, and the reliability of LLM-based coding. Yet existing code IR models remain largely text-centric and often overlook the visual and structural aspects inherent in programming artifacts such as web interfaces, data visualizations, SVGs, schematic diagrams, and UML. To bridge this gap, we introduce MMCoIR, the first comprehensive benchmark for evaluating multimodal code IR across five visual domains, eight programming languages, eleven libraries, and show the challenge of the task through extensive evaluation. Therefore, we then propose CodeMMR, a unified retrieval model that jointly embeds natural language, code, and images into a shared semantic space through instruction-based multimodal alignment. CodeMMR achieves strong generalization across modalities and languages, outperforming competitive baselines (e.g., UniIR, GME, VLM2Vec) by an average of 10 points on nDCG@10. Moreover, integrating CodeMMR into RAG enhances code generation fidelity and visual grounding on unseen code generation tasks, underscoring the potential of multimodal retrieval as a core enabler for next-generation intelligent programming systems. Datasets are available at HuggingFace.

Jiahui Geng, Qing Li, Fengyu Cai +1

MBZUAI, UAE · Linköping University, Sweden · University of Groningen, Netherlands +1

Ai-Assisted Programming Tasks Code Generation Natural Language Discovery

Mar 7, 2026cs.AI

Animating Petascale Time-varying Data on Commodity Hardware with LLM-assisted Scripting

Scientists face significant visualization challenges as time-varying datasets grow in speed and volume, often requiring specialized infrastructure and expertise to handle massive datasets. Petascale climate models generated in NASA laboratories require a dedicated group of graphics and media experts and access to high-performance computing resources. Scientists may need to share scientific results with the community iteratively and quickly. However, the time-consuming trial-and-error process incurs significant data transfer overhead and far exceeds the time and resources allocated for typical post-analysis visualization tasks, disrupting the production workflow. Our paper introduces a user-friendly framework for creating 3D animations of petascale, time-varying data on a commodity workstation. Our contributions: (i) Generalized Animation Descriptor (GAD) with a keyframe-based adaptable abstraction for animation, (ii) efficient data access from cloud-hosted repositories to reduce data management overhead, (iii) tailored rendering system, and (iv) an LLM-assisted conversational interface as a scripting module to allow domain scientists with no visualization expertise to create animations of their region of interest. We demonstrate the framework's effectiveness with two case studies: first, by generating animations in which sampling criteria are specified based on prior knowledge, and second, by generating AI-assisted animations in which sampling parameters are derived from natural-language user prompts. In all cases, we use large-scale NASA climate-oceanographic datasets that exceed 1PB in size yet achieve a fast turnaround time of 1 minute to 2 hours. Users can generate a rough draft of the animation within minutes, then seamlessly incorporate as much high-resolution data as needed for the final version.

Ishrat Jahan Eliza, Xuan Huang, Aashish Panta +4

University of Utah · Vanderbilt University · ViSOAR LLC

High-Performance Computing Global Climate Models Data Generation Pipelines Ai-Assisted Programming Tasks Time-Varying Systems Edge Hardware

Feb 3, 2026cs.CL

Declarative by Design, Assistable Only by Convention: Benchmarking Multi-Agent Frameworks for AI-Assistability

Multi-agent frameworks (MAFs) promise to simplify LLM-driven software development, yet no principled metric captures how well AI coding assistants can generate correct, framework-specific code. We introduce \textit{AI-assistability} (

\mathcal{AI}

), a composite metric that quantifies a framework's amenability to AI-assisted development by combining structural alignment (

\barσ

) with functional correctness (pass@1). To evaluate this metric in a controlled setting, we design DDL2PropBank, a novel benchmark task that maps relational database schemas to PropBank semantic rolesets, and implement identical agent logic across ten frameworks using the Agent-as-a-Tool pattern. Our results challenge the intuition that declarative framework design guarantees AI-assistability: Agno, with a single canonical pattern and convention-aligned API, achieves the highest

\mathcal{AI}

score (0.55), while DSPy -- the most declarative framework by design -- scores lowest (0.07), as its novel abstractions are insufficiently represented in AI training data. We find that convention alignment, not declarative design alone, is the primary driver of AI-assistability (

r = 0.576

between

\barσ

and pass@1). All artifacts -- DDL2PropBank, PropBank MCP server, and all implementations -- are available at https://github.com/ahmeshaf/ddl2propbank

Shafiuddin Rehan Ahmed, Sourabh Deshpande

Center for Advanced AI, Accenture · Mountain View, California, USA

Ai-Assisted Programming Tasks Application Programming Interfaces

Dec 1, 2025cs.HC

A Comparative Study of Student Perspectives on Technical Writing Feedback Quality: Evaluating LLMs, SLMs, and Humans in Computer Science Topics

To address the scalability of feedback in computer science while mitigating the privacy and cost limitations of commercial Large Language Models (LLMs), this study evaluates a locally hosted Small Language Model (SLM). We deployed a quantized Llama-3.1, GPT-4, and human instructors across introductory programming (N=176), operating systems (N=80), and a writing seminar (N=7). Mixed-methods analysis of student perceptions reveals that while the local SLM matched commercial LLMs and was rated higher by students for readability and actionability in technical courses, human feedback remained more favoured for highly specialized writing tasks. We demonstrate that local SLMs offer a privacy-preserving, zero-marginal-cost alternative for foundational feedback, supporting a tiered pedagogical framework where AI handles structural guidance while instructors focus on high-level conceptual scaffolding.

Suqing Liu, Runlong Ye, Christopher Eaton +2

McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada · Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada · Research Institute for the Study of University Pedagogy, University of Toronto Mississauga, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada +1

Computer Science Ai-Assisted Programming Tasks Student Small Large Language Models Feedback High-Level Source Code

Aug 27, 2025cs.CL

A Framework for Deductive Semantic Content Analysis at Scale in Science Education Using Text Embeddings

Qualitative content analysis of open-ended survey responses is a commonly used research method in science education. However, traditional coding approaches are often time-consuming and prone to inconsistency, especially when applied to large datasets. Existing solutions from Natural Language Processing such as supervised classifiers, topic modeling techniques, and generative large language models have limited applicability in analysis of open-ended survey responses, since they demand extensive labeled data, disrupt established qualitative workflows, and/or yield variable results. In this paper, we introduce a text embedding-based classification framework called Deductive Semantic Content Analysis (DeSCA) that requires only a handful of examples per category to run, is transparent and replicable, and fits well with standard qualitative workflows. When benchmarked against human analysis of a physics education survey consisting of 2899 open-ended responses, the method described by our framework achieves high agreement with expert human coders across ten embeddings models on a simulated exhaustive coding task, using approximately 1-2% of the total dataset for training. The method achieves lower agreement on a complete selective coding task; this performance, however, improves with fine-tuning of the text embedding model, which can be done with a small amount of additional data. We unpack these results in terms of the theoretical assumptions of text embeddings, and further demonstrate how embeddings can be used to audit previously-analyzed datasets for coding consistency. These findings demonstrate that text embedding-assisted coding can flexibly scale to thousands of responses without sacrificing interpretability, opening avenues for deductive qualitative analysis at scale.

Jonas Timmann Mjaaland, Markus Fleten Kreutzer, Halvor Tyseng +5

Center for Interdisciplinary Education, University of Oslo, NO-0316 Oslo, Norway · Laboratory of Atomic and Solid State Physics, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853, USA · Department of Physics, California State University Fullerton, Fullerton, CA 92831, USA +1

Qualitative Research Ai-Assisted Programming Tasks Text Embeddings Open-Ended Responses

Jul 29, 2025cs.CL

Introducing HALC: A general pipeline for the systematic and reliable construction of prompts for automated coding with LLMs in the computational social sciences

LLMs are seeing widespread use for task automation, including automated coding in the social sciences. However, even though researchers have proposed different prompting strategies, their effectiveness varies across LLMs and tasks. Often trial and error practices are still widespread. Our study aims to fill this gap and evaluate how LLMs can be used in a systematic and transparent way to produce reliable codings in content analyses. We propose HALC-a general pipeline that allows for the systematic and reliable construction of prompts for any given coding task and model. We develop this pipeline based on current literature and findings of a prestudy investigating consistency and influencing factors of LLM codings. We also apply HALC on two other datasets covering different thematic contexts, document types, languages, and coding units to test its applicability. Based on more than three million LLM requests, our results demonstrate that the pipeline is capable of identifying prompts for reliable codings in different settings. We also discuss shortcomings and further potential for development.

Andreas Reich, Claudia Thoms, Tobias Schrimpf

Ai-Assisted Programming Tasks Prompt Engineering