Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Jake AuBuchon

dblp:332/6673 · also Jacob AuBuchon · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
2ranked-venue papers
0as first author
2since 2021 · last 2022
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Software engineering, systems software and programming languages · 1 · 1 since 2021Human-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 · 100%
Software engineering, system software, and programming languages
1 paper
Empirical software engineering · 100%
Artificial intelligence
1 paper
Information extraction and text analysis · 100%

Topics — the 2 heaviest of 3, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Empirical software engineering
developer studies
0.612022
Pair programming conversations with agents vs. developers: challenges and opportunities for SE community · ESEC/SIGSOFT FSE 2022
Natural language and speech › Information extraction and text analysis
transformer-based classification
0.212022
Pair programming conversations with agents vs. developers: challenges and opportunities for SE community · ESEC/SIGSOFT FSE 2022

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

transfer learning · 1.7XLNet · 1.7GPT-2 · 1.7BERT · 1.7wizard-of-oz study · 1.1wizard of oz study · 0.6
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2022 Pair programming conversations with agents vs. developers: challenges and opportunities for SE community
abstract
Recent research has shown feasibility of an interactive pair-programming conversational agent, but implementing such an agent poses three challenges: a lack of benchmark datasets, absence of software engineering specific labels, and the need to understand developer conversations. To address these challenges, we conducted a Wizard of Oz study with 14 participants pair programming with a simulated agent and collected 4,443 developer-agent utterances. Based on this dataset, we created 26 software engineering labels using an open coding process to develop a hierarchical classification scheme. To understand labeled developer-agent conversations, we compared the accuracy of three state-of-the-art transformer-based language models, BERT, GPT-2, and XLNet, which performed interchangeably. In order to begin creating a developer-agent dataset, researchers and practitioners need to conduct resource intensive Wizard of Oz studies. Presently, there exists vast amounts of developer-developer conversations on video hosting websites. To investigate the feasibility of using developer-developer conversations, we labeled a publicly available developer-developer dataset (3,436 utterances) with our hierarchical classification scheme and found that a BERT model trained on developer-developer data performed ~10% worse than the BERT trained on developer-agent data, but when using transfer-learning, accuracy improved. Finally, our qualitative analysis revealed that developer-developer conversations are more implicit, neutral, and opinionated than developer-agent conversations. Our results have implications for software engineering researchers and practitioners developing conversational agents.
Peter Robe, Sandeep Kaur Kuttal, Jake AuBuchon, Jacob C. Hart
ESEC/SIGSOFT FSE3
2022 Feasibility of using YouTube Conversations for Pair Programming Intent Classification
abstract
Pair programming conversational agents demand vast amounts of data for training. Recently a benchmark dataset of developer-developer and developer-agent pair programming conversations, from lab studies (8,324 utterances) was released for training natural language unit of a pair programming conversational agent. Unfortunately, this dataset is limited to a single domain and language. To investigate if it was feasible to utilize already available pair programming conversations from online video hosting platforms (i.e. YouTube), we collected five Youtube videos (roughly 350 minutes) with 4,822 utterances. We used transformer-based language model BERT to compare the lab studies with online videos. We found that a transfer learning approach, first training BERT on online videos and then fine-tuning with specific developer-agent data, resulted in the best performance.
Jacob C. Hart, Jake AuBuchon, Sandeep Kaur Kuttal
VL/HCC2