Cited by 50Recommender Systems and TechniquesInformation Retrieval and Search BehaviorSoftware Engineering Research

Reactive information foraging: an empirical investigation of theory-based recommender systems for programmers

Piorkowski, David, Fleming, Scott, Scaffidi, Christopher, Bogart, Christopher, Burnett, Margaret, John, Bonnie, Bellamy, Rachel, Swart, Calvin·2012·Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

Abstract

Information Foraging Theory (IFT) has established itself as an important theory to explain how people seek information, but most work has focused more on the theory itself than on how best to apply it. In this paper, we investigate how to apply a reactive variant of IFT (Reactive IFT) to design IFT-based tools, with a special focus on such tools for ill-structured problems. Toward this end, we designed and implemented a variety of recommender algorithms to empirically investigate how to help people with the ill-structured problem of finding where to look for information while debugging source code. We varied the algorithms based on scent type supported (words alone vs. words + code structure), and based on use of foraging momentum to estimate rapidity of foragers' goal changes. Our empirical results showed that (1) using both words and code structure significantly improved the ability of the algorithms to recommend where software developers should look for information; (2) participants used recommendations to discover new places in the code and also as shortcuts to navigate to known places; and (3) low-momentum recommendations were significantly more useful than high-momentum recommendations, suggesting rapid and numerous goal changes in this type of setting. Overall, our contributions include two new recommendation algorithms, empirical evidence about when and why participants found IFT-based recommendations useful, and implications for the design of tools based on Reactive IFT.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/2207676.2208608

Cites

32 of 32 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Piorkowski, D., Fleming, S., Scaffidi, C., Bogart, C., Burnett, M., John, B., Bellamy, R., & Swart, C.
Affiliations
  • Oregon State University (US)
  • IBM (United States) (US)
Venue
Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
Publisher
ACM
Published
2012-05-05
Pages
1471-1480
OpenAlex
W2116109573
Cited by
50
References
32
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 3 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 3
FWCI
3.52
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (publishedVersion)
Funders
Air Force Office of Scientific Research
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Recommender Systems and Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Information Retrieval and Search Behavior
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Research
Keywords
information foraging theory, recommender systems, debugging, source code navigation, ill-structured problems, scent, code structure, goal change, software developers

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review