EDBT 2026 Demo / reviewers in the wild / expert
Claire Kayacik
dblp:239/9492
· DBLP profile ↗
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
1since 2021 · last 2022
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Human-computer interaction and ubiquitous computing · 1 · 1 since 2021
Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.
| Human-computer interaction and pervasive computing
1 paper |
Human-AI interaction · 77% User interface design and tools · 23% | |
| Software engineering, system software, and programming languages
1 paper |
Program synthesis and code generation · 100% |
Topics — the 1 heaviest of 3, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Program synthesis and code generation
natural language programming |
0.6 | 1 | 2022 | Discovering the Syntax and Strategies of Natural Language Programming with Generative Language Models · CHI 2022 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
user study · 1.1prompting · 1.1large generative language model · 1.1
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2022 | Discovering the Syntax and Strategies of Natural Language Programming with Generative Language ModelsabstractIn this paper, we present a natural language code synthesis tool, GenLine, backed by 1) a large generative language model and 2) a set of task-specific prompts that create or change code. To understand the user experience of natural language code synthesis with these new types of models, we conducted a user study in which participants applied GenLine to two programming tasks. Our results indicate that while natural language code synthesis can sometimes provide a magical experience, participants still faced challenges. In particular, participants felt that they needed to learn the model’s “syntax,” despite their input being natural language. Participants also struggled to form an accurate mental model of the types of requests the model can reliably translate and developed a set of strategies to debug model input. From these findings, we discuss design implications for future natural language code synthesis tools built using large generative language models. Ellen Jiang, Edwin Toh, Alejandra Molina, Kristen Olson, Claire Kayacik, Aaron Donsbach, Carrie J. Cai, Michael Terry |
CHI | 5 |