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

Tobias Dick

dblp:248/6079 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
1since 2021 · last 2025
—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 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.

Software engineering, system software, and programming languages
1 paper
Empirical software engineering · 87% Program synthesis and code generation · 13%

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

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Empirical software engineering
developer studies
0.912025
An Empirical Study of Knowledge Transfer in AI Pair Programming · ASE 2025
Empirical software engineering › developer studies › developer collaboration
pair programming
0.912025
An Empirical Study of Knowledge Transfer in AI Pair Programming · ASE 2025
Program synthesis and code generation
code generation with language models
0.312025
An Empirical Study of Knowledge Transfer in AI Pair Programming · ASE 2025

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

knowledge transfer framework · 0.9empirical study · 0.9
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2025 An Empirical Study of Knowledge Transfer in AI Pair Programming
abstract
Knowledge transfer is fundamental to human collaboration and is therefore common in software engineering. Pair programming is a prominent instance. With the rise of AI coding assistants, developers now not only work with human partners but also, as some claim, with AI pair programmers. Although studies confirm knowledge transfer during human pair programming, its effectiveness with AI coding assistants remains uncertain.To analyze knowledge transfer in both human–human and human–AI settings, we conducted an empirical study where developer pairs solved a programming task without AI support, while a separate group of individual developers completed the same task using the AI coding assistant GitHub Copilot. We extended an existing knowledge transfer framework and employed a semi-automated evaluation pipeline to assess differences in knowledge transfer episodes across both settings. We found a similar frequency of successful knowledge transfer episodes and overlapping topical categories across both settings. Two of our key findings are that developers tend to accept GitHub Copilot’s suggestions with less scrutiny than those from human pair programming partners, but also that GitHub Copilot can subtly remind developers of important code details they might otherwise overlook.
Alisa Welter, Niklas Schneider, Tobias Dick, Kallistos Weis, Christof Tinnes, Marvin Wyrich, Sven Apel
ASE3