Current in-IDE AI coding tools typically rely on time-consuming manual prompting and context management, whereas proactive alternatives that anticipate developer needs without explicit invocation remain underexplored. Understanding when humans are receptive to such proactive AI assistance during their daily work remains an open question in human-AI interaction research. We address this gap through a field study of proactive AI assistance in professional developer workflows. We present a five-day in-the-wild study with 15 developers who interacted with a proactive feature of an AI assistant integrated into a production-grade IDE that offers code quality suggestions based on in-IDE developer activity. We examined 229 AI interventions across 5,732 interaction points to understand how proactive suggestions are received across workflow stages, how developers experience them, and their perceived impact. Our findings reveal systematic patterns in human receptivity to proactive suggestions: interventions at workflow boundaries (e.g., post-commit) achieved 52% engagement rates, while mid-task interventions (e.g., on declined edit) were dismissed 62% of the time. Notably, well-timed proactive suggestions required significantly less interpretation time than reactive suggestions (45.4s versus 101.4s, W = 109.00, r = 0.533, p = 0.0016), indicating enhanced cognitive alignment. This study provides actionable implications for designing proactive coding assistants, including how to time interventions, align them with developer context, and strike a balance between AI agency and user control in production IDEs.

The rise of large language models for code has reshaped software development. Autonomous coding agents, able to create branches, open pull requests, and perform code reviews, now actively contribute to real-world projects. Their growing role offers a unique and timely opportunity to investigate AI-driven contributions and their effects on code quality, team dynamics, and software maintainability. In this work, we construct a novel dataset of approximately 110,000 open-source pull requests, including associated commits, comments, reviews, issues, and file changes, collectively representing millions of lines of source code. We compare five popular coding agents, including OpenAI Codex, Claude Code, GitHub Copilot, Google Jules, and Devin, examining how their usage differs in various development aspects such as merge frequency, edited file types, and developer interaction signals, including comments and reviews. Furthermore, we emphasize that code authoring and review are only a small part of the larger software engineering process, as the resulting code must also be maintained and updated over time. Hence, we offer several longitudinal estimates of survival and churn rates for agent-generated versus human-authored code. Ultimately, our findings indicate an increasing agent activity in open-source projects, although their contributions are associated with more churn over time compared to human-authored code.

Benchmarks are essential for unified evaluation and reproducibility. The rapid rise of Artificial Intelligence for Software Engineering (AI4SE) has produced numerous benchmarks for tasks such as code generation and bug repair. However, this proliferation has led to major challenges: (1) fragmented knowledge across tasks, (2) difficulty in selecting contextually relevant benchmarks, (3) lack of standardization in benchmark creation, and (4) flaws that limit utility. Addressing these requires a dual approach: systematically mapping existing benchmarks for informed selection and defining unified guidelines for robust, adaptable benchmark development. We conduct a review of 247 studies, identifying 273 AI4SE benchmarks since 2014. We categorize them, analyze limitations, and expose gaps in current practices. Building on these insights, we introduce BenchScout, an extensible semantic search tool for locating suitable benchmarks. BenchScout employs automated clustering with contextual embeddings of benchmark-related studies, followed by dimensionality reduction. In a user study with 22 participants, BenchScout achieved usability, effectiveness, and intuitiveness scores of 4.5, 4.0, and 4.1 out of 5. To improve benchmarking standards, we propose BenchFrame, a unified approach to improve benchmark quality. Applying Bench-Frame to HumanEval yielded HumanEvalNext, which features corrected errors, improved language conversion, higher test coverage, and greater difficulty. Evaluating 10 state-of-the-art code models on HumanEval, HumanEvalPlus, and HumanEvalNext revealed average pass-at-1 drops of 31.22% and 19.94%, respectively, underscoring the need for continuous benchmark refinement. We further examine BenchFrame’s scalability through an agentic pipeline and confirm its generalizability on the MBPP dataset. Lastly, we publicly release the material of our review, user study, and the enhanced benchmark.1

Automated unit test generators, particularly searchbased software testing tools like EvoSuite, are capable of generating tests with high coverage. Although these generators alleviate the burden of writing unit tests, they often pose challenges for software engineers in terms of understanding the generated tests. To address this, we introduce UTGen, which combines searchbased software testing and large language models to enhance the understandability of automatically generated test cases. We achieve this enhancement through contextualizing test data, improving identifier naming, and adding descriptive comments. Through a controlled experiment with 32 participants from both academia and industry, we investigate how the understandability of unit tests affects a software engineer's ability to perform bug-fixing tasks. We selected bug-fixing to simulate a real-world scenario that emphasizes the importance of understandable test cases. We observe that participants working on assignments with UTGen test cases fix up to 33 % more bugs and use up to 20 % less time when compared to baseline test cases. From the post-test questionnaire, we gathered that participants found that enhanced test names, test data, and variable names improved their bugfixing process.

The rise of AI tools is reshaping computer science education, shifting the focus from coding skills to teaching students how to effectively use these technologies. Understanding students' mental models and fostering computational and metacognitive skills are now essential, as over-reliance on AI can weaken critical thinking. This panel explores how a human-centered approach can balance these challenges, sharing strategies to optimize learning while addressing the risks of cognitive offloading in an AI-driven world.

Token-Level code completion is one of the most critical features in modern Integrated Development Environments (IDEs). It assists developers by suggesting relevant identifiers and APIs during coding. While completions are typically derived from static analysis, their usefulness depends heavily on how they are ranked, as correct predictions buried deep in the list are rarely seen by users. Most current systems rely on handcrafted heuristics or lightweight machine learning models trained on user logs, which can be further improved to capture context information and generalize across projects and coding styles. In this work, we propose a new scoring approach to ranking static completions using language models in a lightweight and model-agnostic way. Our method organizes all valid completions into a prefix tree and performs a single greedy decoding pass to collect token-level scores across the tree. This enables a precise token-aware ranking without needing beam search, prompt engineering, or model adaptations. The approach is fast, architecture-agnostic, and compatible with already deployed models for code completion. These findings highlight a practical and effective pathway for integrating language models into already existing tools within IDEs, and ultimately providing smarter and more responsive developer assistance.

Large Language Models are transforming software engineering, yet prompt management in practice remains ad hoc, hindering reliability, reuse, and integration into industrial workflows. We present Prompt-with-Me, a practical solution for structured prompt management embedded directly in the development environment. The system automatically classifies prompts using a four-dimensional taxonomy that encompasses intent, author role, software development lifecycle stage, and prompt type. To improve prompt reuse and quality, Prompt-with-Me suggests language refinements, masks sensitive information, and extracts reusable templates from a developer’s prompt library.Our taxonomy study of 1,108 real-world prompts demonstrates that modern LLMs can accurately classify software engineering prompts. Furthermore, our user study with 11 participants shows strong developer acceptance, with high usability (Mean SUS=73), low cognitive load (Mean NASA-TLX=21), and reported gains in prompt quality and efficiency through reduced repetitive effort. Lastly, we offer actionable insights for building the next generation of prompt management and maintenance tools for software engineering workflows.

Large language models have shown impressive performance in various domains, including code generation across diverse open-source domains. However, their applicability in proprietary industrial settings, where domain-specific constraints and code interdependencies are prevalent, remains largely unexplored. We present a case study conducted in collaboration with the leveling department at ASML to investigate the performance of LLMs in generating functional, maintainable code within a closed, highly specialized software environment.We developed an evaluation framework tailored to ASML’s proprietary codebase and introduced a new benchmark. Additionally, we proposed a new evaluation metric, build@k, to assess whether LLM-generated code successfully compiles and integrates within real industrial repositories. We investigate various prompting techniques, compare the performance of generic and code-specific LLMs, and examine the impact of model size on code generation capabilities, using both match-based and execution-based metrics. The findings reveal that prompting techniques and model size have a significant impact on output quality, with few-shot and chain-of-thought prompting yielding the highest build success rates. The difference in performance between the code-specific LLMs and generic LLMs was less pronounced and varied substantially across different model families.

Code language models, while widely popular, are often trained on unsanitized source code gathered from across the Internet. Previous work revealed that pre-trained models can remember the content of their training data and regurgitate them through data extraction attacks. Due to the large size of current models, only a few entities have the resources for pre-training such models. However, fine-tuning requires fewer resources and is increasingly used by both small and large entities for its effectiveness on specialized data. Such small curated data for finetuning might contain sensitive information or proprietary assets. In this study, we attack both pre-trained and fine-tuned code language models to investigate the extent of data extractability. We first develop a custom benchmark to assess the vulnerability of both pre-training and fine-tuning samples to extraction attacks. Our findings reveal that $54.9 \%$ of extractable pre-training data could be retrieved from StarCoder2-15B, whereas this number decreased to $\mathbf{2 3. 5 \%}$ after fine-tuning. This indicates that finetuning reduces the extractability of pre-training data. However, compared to larger models, fine-tuning smaller models increases their vulnerability to data extraction attacks on fine-tuning data. Given the potential sensitivity of fine-tuning data, this can lead to more severe consequences. Lastly, we also manually analyzed 2000 extractable samples before and after fine-tuning. We also found that data carriers and licensing information are the most likely data categories to be memorized from pre-trained and finetuned models, while the latter is the most likely to be forgotten after fine-tuning.

As GenAI becomes embedded in developer toolchains and practices, and routine code is increasingly generated, human creativity will be increasingly important for generating competitive advantage. This article uses the McLuhan tetrad alongside scenarios of how GenAI may disrupt software development more broadly, to identify potential impacts GenAI may have on creativity within software development. The impacts are discussed along with a future research agenda comprising five connected themes that consider how individual capabilities, team capabilities, the product, unintended consequences, and society can be affected.

Large language models have gained significant popularity because of their ability to generate human-like text and potential applications in various fields, such as Software Engineering. Large language models for code are commonly trained on large unsanitised corpora of source code scraped from the internet. The content of these datasets is memorised and can be extracted by attackers with data extraction attacks. In this work, we explore memorisation in large language models for code and compare the rate of memorisation with large language models trained on natural language. We adopt an existing benchmark for natural language and construct a benchmark for code by identifying samples that are vulnerable to attack. We run both benchmarks against a variety of models, and perform a data extraction attack. We find that large language models for code are vulnerable to data extraction attacks, like their natural language counterparts. From the training data that was identified to be potentially extractable we were able to extract 47% from a CodeGen-Mono-16B code completion model. We also observe that models memorise more, as their parameter count grows, and that their pre-training data are also vulnerable to attack. We also find that data carriers are memorised at a higher rate than regular code or documentation and that different model architectures memorise different samples. Data leakage has severe outcomes, so we urge the research community to further investigate the extent of this phenomenon using a wider range of models and extraction techniques in order to build safeguards to mitigate this issue.

Transformer-based language models for automatic code completion have shown great promise so far, yet the evaluation of these models rarely uses real data. This study provides both quantitative and qualitative assessments of three public code language models when completing real-world code. We first developed an open-source IDE extension, Code4Me, for the online evaluation of the models. We collected real auto-completion usage data for over a year from more than 1200 users, resulting in over 600K valid completions. These models were then evaluated using six standard metrics across twelve programming languages. Next, we conducted a qualitative study of 1690 real-world completion requests to identify the reasons behind the poor model performance. A comparative analysis of the models' performance in online and offline settings was also performed, using benchmark synthetic datasets and two masking strategies.

MAVEN is a popular dependency management tool and ecosystem used by millions of developers. However, the over-whelming amount of available open-source software and the lack of proper ecosystem governance pose risks to the security and effectiveness of the ecosystem. This necessitates a comprehensive understanding of the ecosystem to guide future decision-making and promote effective practices. Despite numerous studies on aspects of Maven,such as vulnerabilities, breaking changes, and bloated dependencies, a knowledge gap concerning its overall state and health still exists. This gap impedes the adoption of effective practices, potentially impacting the productivity and efficiency of projects and the ecosystem as a whole. This paper explores the fundamental aspects of the Mavenecosystem. We investigate the packaging practices of Mavenlibraries with a focus on the content of the libraries, their impact on the ecosystem and each other, and their evolution over time. Our goal is to provide insights into the ecosystem's practices and trends. To achieve this, we create a scalable infrastructure and collect a comprehensive dataset of 480K unique packages by randomly selecting one version from each Mavenproject. We use this dataset to analyze the content of Mavenreleases and their packaging practices. We discover three concerning practices that deserve the community's attention: various data inconsistencies within Maven,improper use of Mavenarchives, and exponential dependency growth. We discuss practical recommendations to mitigate these issues, such as implementing stricter release checks and dependency minimization during deployments. To help promote more research, we open our dataset and tools for public use.

Transformer-based pre-trained models have recently achieved great results in solving many software engineering tasks including automatic code completion which is a staple in a developer’s toolkit. While many have striven to improve the code-understanding abilities of such models, the opposite – making the code easier to understand – has not been properly investigated. In this study, we aim to answer whether making code easier to understand through using contextual data improves the performance of pre-trained code language models for the task of code completion. We consider type annotations and comments as two common forms of additional contextual information that often help developers understand code better. For the experiments, we study code completion in two granularity levels; token and line completion and take three recent and large-scale language models for source code: UniXcoder, CodeGPT, and InCoder with five evaluation metrics. Finally, we perform the Wilcoxon Signed Rank test to gauge significance and measure the effect size. Contrary to our expectations, all models perform better if type annotations are removed (albeit the effect sizes are small). For comments, we find that the models perform better in the presence of multi-line comments (again with small effect sizes). Based on our observations, we recommend making proper design choices when training, fine-tuning, or simply selecting such models given the intended data and application. Better evaluations and multimodal techniques can also be further investigated to improve the practicality and accuracy of auto-completions.

The recent advancements in Transformer-based Language Models have demonstrated significant potential in enhancing the multilingual capabilities of these models. The remarkable progress made in this domain not only applies to natural language tasks but also extends to the domain of programming languages. Despite the ability of these models to learn from multiple languages, evaluations typically focus on particular combinations of the same languages. In this study, we evaluate the similarity of programming languages by analyzing their representations using a CodeBERT-based model. Our experiments reveal that token representation in languages such as C++, Python, and Java exhibit proximity to one another, whereas the same tokens in languages such as Mathematica and R display significant dissimilarity. Our findings suggest that this phenomenon can potentially result in performance challenges when dealing with diverse languages. Thus, we recommend using our similarity measure to select a diverse set of programming languages when training and evaluating future models.

Binary reverse engineering is used to understand and analyse programs for which the source code is unavailable. Decompilers can help, transforming opaque binaries into a more readable source code-like representation. Still, reverse engineering is difficult and costly, involving considering effort in labelling code with helpful summaries. While the automated summarisation of decompiled code can help reverse engineers understand and analyse binaries, current work mainly focuses on summarising source code, and no suitable dataset exists for this task. In this work, we extend large pre-trained language models of source code to summarise de-compiled binary functions. Further-more, we investigate the impact of input and data properties on the performance of such models. Our approach consists of two main components; the data and the model. We first build CAPYBARA, a dataset of 214K decompiled function-documentation pairs across various compiler optimisations. We extend CAPYBARA further by removing identifiers, and deduplicating the data. Next, we fine-tune the CodeT5 base model with CAPYBARA to create BinT5. BinT5 achieves the state-of-the-art BLEU-4 score of 60.83, 58.82 and, 44.21 for summarising source, decompiled, and obfuscated decompiled code, respectively. This indicates that these models can be extended to decompiled binaries successfully. Finally, we found that the performance of BinT5 is not heavily dependent on the dataset size and compiler optimisation level. We recommend future research to further investigate transferring knowledge when working with less expressive input formats such as stripped binaries.

Code completion is an essential feature of IDEs, yet current auto-completers are restricted to either grammar-based or NLP-based single token completions. Both approaches have significant drawbacks: grammar-based autocompletion is restricted in dynamically-typed language environments, whereas NLP-based autocompleters struggle to understand the semantics of the programming language and the developer's code context.

An issue report documents the discussions around required changes in issue-tracking systems, while a commit contains the change itself in the version control systems. Recovering links between issues and commits can facilitate many software evolution tasks such as bug localization, defect prediction, software quality measurement, and software documentation. A previous study on over half a million issues from GitHub reports only about 42.2% of issues are manually linked by developers to their pertinent commits. Automating the linking of commit-issue pairs can contribute to the improvement of the said tasks. By far, current state-of-the-art approaches for automated commit-issue linking suffer from low precision, leading to unreliable results, sometimes to the point that imposes human supervision on the predicted links. The low performance gets even more severe when there is a lack of textual information in either commits or issues. Current approaches are also proven computationally expensive. We propose Hybrid-Linker, an enhanced approach that overcomes such limitations by exploiting two information channels; (1) a non-textual-based component that operates on non-textual, automatically recorded information of the commit-issue pairs to predict a link, and (2) a textual-based one which does the same using textual information of the commit-issue pairs. Then, combining the results from the two classifiers, Hybrid-Linker makes the final prediction. Thus, every time one component falls short in predicting a link, the other component fills the gap and improves the results. We evaluate Hybrid-Linker against competing approaches, namely FRLink and DeepLink on a dataset of 12 projects. Hybrid-Linker achieves 90.1%, 87.8%, and 88.9% based on recall, precision, and F-measure, respectively. It also outperforms FRLink and DeepLink by 31.3%, and 41.3%, regarding the F-measure. Moreover, the proposed approach exhibits extensive improvements in terms of performance as well. Finally, our source code and data are publicly available.

Community Question Answering platforms such as Stack Overflow help a wide range of users solve their challenges on-line. As the popularity of these communities has grown over the years, both the number of members and posts have escalated. Also, due to the diverse backgrounds, skills, expertise, and viewpoints of users, each question may obtain more than one answer. Therefore, the focus has changed toward producing posts that have a set of answers more valuable for the community as a whole, not just one accepted-answer aimed at satisfying only the question-asker. Same as every universal community, a large number of low-quality posts on Stack Overflow require improvement. We call these posts "deficient", and define them as posts with questions that either have no answer yet or can be improved by other ones. In this paper, we propose an approach to automate the identification process of such posts and boost their set of answers, utilizing the help of related experts. With the help of 60 participants, we trained a classification model to identify deficient posts by investigating the relationship between characteristics of 3075 questions posted on Stack Overflow and their need for better answers set. Then, we developed an Eclipse plugin named SOPI and integrated the prediction model in the plugin to link these deficient posts to related developers (in terms of their development context and expertise area) and help them improve the answer set. We evaluated both the functionality of our plugin and the impact of answers submitted to Stack Overflow with the help of 10 and 15 expert industrial developers, respectively. Our results indicate that decision trees, specifically the J48 algorithm, predicts a deficient question better than the other methods with 94.5% precision and 90.3% recall. We conclude that not only our plugin helps programmers contribute more easily to Stack Overflow, but also it improves the quality of existing answers.