PreprintCited by 3Software Engineering ResearchSoftware Engineering Techniques and PracticesAdvanced Software Engineering Methodologies

Does Co-Development with AI Assistants Lead to More Maintainable Code? A Registered Report

Open access
Borg, Markus, Hewett, Dave, Graham, Donald, Couderc, Noric, Söderberg, Emma, Church, Luke, Farley, Dave·2024·arXiv

Abstract

[Background/Context] AI assistants like GitHub Copilot are transforming software engineering; several studies have highlighted productivity improvements. However, their impact on code quality, particularly in terms of maintainability, requires further investigation. [Objective/Aim] This study aims to examine the influence of AI assistants on software maintainability, specifically assessing how these tools affect the ability of developers to evolve code. [Method] We will conduct a two-phased controlled experiment involving professional developers. In Phase 1, developers will add a new feature to a Java project, with or without the aid of an AI assistant. Phase 2, a randomized controlled trial, will involve a different set of developers evolving random Phase 1 projects - working without AI assistants. We will employ Bayesian analysis to evaluate differences in completion time, perceived productivity, code quality, and test coverage.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2408.10758

Cites

0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

The publisher hasn’t deposited this paper’s reference list.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Borg, M., Hewett, D., Graham, D., Couderc, N., Söderberg, E., Church, L., & Farley, D.
Affiliations
Lund University (SE)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2024
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4403007318
Cited by
2
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2024: 1
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • Lund University Publications (Lund University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Research
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Techniques and Practices
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Advanced Software Engineering Methodologies
Keywords
AI assistants, GitHub Copilot, software maintainability, code evolution, code quality, developer productivity, test coverage, Java

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