CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 6Software Engineering Techniques and PracticesSoftware Engineering ResearchTeaching and Learning Programming

The DOI matches its DataCite record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Good Vibrations? A Qualitative Study of Co-Creation, Communication, Flow, and Trust in Vibe Coding

Open access
Pimenova, Veronica, Fakhoury, Sarah, Bird, Christian, Storey, Margaret-Anne, Endres, Madeline·2025·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2509.12491arXiv 2509.12491
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Vibe coding, a term coined by Andrej Karpathy in February 2025, has quickly become a compelling and controversial natural language programming paradigm in AI-assisted software development. Centered on iterative co-design with an AI assistant, vibe coding emphasizes flow and experimentation over strict upfront specification. While initial studies have begun to explore this paradigm, most focus on analyzing code artifacts or proposing theories with limited empirical backing. There remains a need for a grounded understanding of vibe coding as it is perceived and experienced by developers. We present the first systematic qualitative investigation of vibe coding perceptions and practice. Drawing on over 190,000 words from semi-structured interviews, Reddit threads, and LinkedIn posts, we characterize what vibe coding is, why and how developers use it, where it breaks down, and which emerging practices aim to support it. We propose a qualitatively grounded theory of vibe coding centered on conversational interaction with AI, co-creation, and developer flow and joy. We find that AI trust regulates movement along a continuum from delegation to co-creation and supports the developer experience by sustaining flow. We surface recurring pain points and risks in areas including specification, reliability, debugging, latency, code review burden, and collaboration. We also present best practices that have been discovered and shared to mitigate these challenges. We conclude with implications for the future of AI dev tools and directions for researchers investigating vibe coding.

Overview

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.2509.12491

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • GenAI may accelerate debt accumulation by increasing code volume without proportionate improvements in quality, integration with the software, or architectural coherence.

    “From a technical debt perspective, GenAI may accelerate debt accumulation by increasing code volume without proportionate improvements in quality, the integration with the software, or architectural coherence (Pimenova et al. 2025).”

    From AI-Assisted Programming Decreases the Productivity of Experienced Developers by Increasing the Technical Debt and Maintenance Burden (2025) · cites this paper as Pimenova et al. 2025

    Section 4.5.1 (page unavailable) reports that vibe coding can introduce technical debt and unmaintainable code. Section 4.3 (page unavailable) describes large AI-made changes, poor code quality, and breakdowns in structure and planning. The paper does not establish that increased code volume outpaces improvements in quality or integration with existing software; that comparative mechanism goes beyond its findings. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The widespread use of AI-assisted pair programming can inject a larger volume of difficult-to-maintain code into software projects, accelerating the accumulation of technical debt.

    “The widespread use of AI-assisted pair programming - and, in extreme cases, 'vibe coding' - can inject a larger volume of difficult-to-maintain code (Pimenova et al. 2025, Fawzy et al. 2025) into software projects, accelerating the accumulation of technical debt.”

    From AI-Assisted Programming Decreases the Productivity of Experienced Developers by Increasing the Technical Debt and Maintenance Burden (2025) · cites this paper as Pimenova et al. 2025

    Section 4.5.1 (page unavailable) reports participants’ concerns that vibe coding can produce unmaintainable code and technical debt. Section 4.3 describes large AI-made code changes and difficult debugging. The paper does not establish that widespread AI-assisted pair programming generally increases code volume in projects or accelerates technical-debt accumulation. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 77

  1. Jane Agee. 2009. Developing qualitative research questions: A reflective process. International journal of qualitative studies in education 22, 4 (2009), 431-447.
  2. Michel Beaudouin-Lafon. 2000. Instrumental interaction: an interaction model for designing post-WIMP user interfaces. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems. 446-453.
  3. Andrew Brown, Amanda Chang, Brian Holtz, and Salvatore D'Angelo. 2023. Developer Productivity for Humans, Part 6: Measuring Flow, Focus, and Friction for Developers. IEEE Software 40, 5 (2023), 16-21. doi:10.1109/MS.2023.3305718 · DOI
  4. Jenna Butler, Jina Suh, Sankeerti Haniyur, and Constance Hadley. 2024. Dear Diary: A randomized controlled trial of Generative AI coding tools in the workplace. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.18334 (October 2024). doi:10.48550/arXiv.2410.18334 Submitted on 24 Oct 2024. · DOI
  5. Mark Chen, Jerry Tworek, Heewoo Jun, Qiming Yuan, Henrique Ponde de Oliveira Pinto, Jared Kaplan, Harri Edwards, Yuri Burda, Nicholas Joseph, Greg Brockman, Alex Ray, Raul Puri, Gretchen Krueger, Michael Petrov, Heidy Khlaaf, Girish Sastry, Pamela Mishkin, Brooke Chan, Scott Gray, Nick Ryder, Mikhail Pavlov, Alethea Power, Lukasz Kaiser, Mohammad Bavarian, Clemens Winter, Philippe Tillet, Felipe Petroski Such, Dave Cummings, Matthias Plappert, Fotios Chantzis, Elizabeth Barnes, Ariel Herbert-Voss, William Hebgen Guss, Alex Nichol, Alex Paino, Nikolas Tezak, Jie Tang, Igor Babuschkin, Suchir Balaji, Shantanu Jain, William Saunders, Christopher Hesse, Andrew N. Carr, Jan Leike, Josh Achiam, Vedant Misra, Evan Morikawa, Alec Radford, Matthew Knight, Miles Brundage, Mira Murati, Katie Mayer, Peter Welinder, Bob McGrew, Dario Amodei, Sam McCandlish, Ilya Sutskever, and Wojciech Zaremba. 2021. Evaluating Large Language Models Trained on Code. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.03374 (2021). · arXiv
  6. Yi-Hung Chou, Boyuan Jiang, Yi Wen Chen, Mingyue Weng, Victoria Jackson, Thomas Zimmermann, and James A. Jones. 2025. Building Software by Rolling the Dice: A Qualitative Study of Vibe Coding. arXiv:2512.22418 [cs.SE] https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.22418 · arXiv
  7. Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, Reed Larson, et al. 2014. Flow and the foundations of positive psychology. Vol. 10. Springer. Manuscript submitted to ACM
  8. Allen Cypher (Ed.). 1993. Watch What I Do: Programming by Demonstration. MIT Press.
  9. Nicole M Deterding and Mary C Waters. 2021. Flexible coding of in-depth interviews: A twenty-first-century approach. Sociological methods & research 50, 2 (2021), 708-739.
  10. Dana Feng, Bhada Yun, and April Yi Wang. 2026. From Junior to Senior: Allocating Agency and Navigating Professional Growth in Agentic AI-Mediated Software Engineering. In Proceedings of the 2026 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '26). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 596, 24 pages. doi:10.1145/3772318.3791642 · DOI
  11. Casey Fiesler, Michael Zimmer, Nicholas Proferes, Sarah Gilbert, and Naiyan Jones. 2024. Remember the human: A systematic review of ethical considerations in reddit research. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 8, GROUP (2024), 1-33.
  12. Norbert E. Fuchs and Rolf Schwitter. 1996. Attempto Controlled English (ACE). In Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Controlled Language Applications.
  13. Kiev Gama, Filipe Calegario, Victoria Jackson, Alexander Nolte, Luiz Augusto Morais, and Vinicius Garcia. 2026. "Can you feel the vibes?": An exploration of novice programmer engagement with vibe coding. In Proceedings of the 2026 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Software Engineering: Software Engineering Education and Training (ICSE-SEET). arXiv:2512.02750 [cs.SE] doi:10.48550/arXiv.2512.02750 · DOI
  14. Francis Geng, Anshul Shah, Haolin Li, Nawab Mulla, Steven Swanson, Gerald Soosai Raj, Daniel Zingaro, and Leo Porter. 2025. Exploring Student-AI Interactions in Vibe Coding. arXiv:2507.22614 [cs.HC] https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.22614 · arXiv
  15. Sriram Gopalakrishnan. 2026. Don't Vibe Code, Do Skele-Code: Interactive No-Code Notebooks for Subject Matter Experts to Build Lower-Cost Agentic Workflows. arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.18122 (2026). · arXiv
  16. Daniel Graziotin, Xiaofeng Wang, and Pekka Abrahamsson. 2014. Happy software developers solve problems better: psychological measurements in empirical software engineering. PeerJ 2 (03 2014), e289. doi:10.7717/peerj.289 · DOI
  17. Michaela Greiler, Margaret-Anne Storey, and Abi Noda. 2022. An Actionable Framework for Understanding and Improving Developer Experience. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 49, 4 (May 2022), 1411-1425. doi:10.1109/TSE.2022.3177992 ArXiv preprint: arXiv:2205.06352. · DOI
  18. Sumit Gulwani. 2011. Automating String Processing in Spreadsheets Using Input-Output Examples. In Proceedings of the 38th Annual ACM SIGPLAN-SIGACT Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages. ACM, 317-330.
  19. David Harel. 2002. Biting the silver bullet: Toward a brighter future for system development. Computer 25, 1 (2002), 8-20.
  20. Ruanqianqian (Lisa) Huang, Avery Reyna, Sorin Lerner, Haijun Xia, and Brian Hempel. 2025. Professional Software Developers Don't Vibe, They Control: AI Agent Use for Coding in 2025. arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.14012 (2025). https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.14012 · arXiv
  21. Yeonju Jang, Mose Sakashita, Koichiro Niinuma, and Aakar Gupta. 2026. Evolving Enactions of Expertise: Software Engineers' Evaluation and Demonstration of Coding Expertise with AI Coding Assistants. In Proceedings of the 2026 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '26). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 115, 17 pages. doi:10.1145/3772318.3791260 · DOI
  22. Eirini Kalliamvakou et al. 2021. The SPACE of Developer Productivity: There's More to it than You Think. ACM Queue 19, 1 (2021).
  23. Saketh Ram Kasibatla, Raven Rothkopf, Hila Peleg, Benjamin C. Pierce, Sorin Lerner, Harrison Goldstein, and Nadia Polikarpova. 2025. Decision- Oriented Programming with Aporia. arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.05203 (2025). https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.05203 · arXiv
  24. Mary Beth Kery and Brad A Myers. 2017. Exploring exploratory programming. In 2017 IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing (VL/HCC). IEEE, 25-29.
  25. Abidullah Khan, Atefah Shokrizadeh, and Jinghui Cheng. 2025. Beyond Automation: How Designers Perceive AI as a Creative Partner in the Divergent Thinking Stages of UI/UX Design. In Proceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1-12.
  26. Shahedul Huq Khandkar. 2009. Open coding. University of Calgary 23, 2009 (2009), 2009.
  27. Mansi Khemka and Brian Houck. 2024. Toward Effective AI Support for Developers: A Survey of Desires and Concerns. Commun. ACM 67, 11 (October 2024), 42-49. doi:10.1145/3690928 · DOI
  28. Charlotte Kobiella, Daniela Breidenstein, and Albrecht Schmidt. 2026. From Throw-Away to Takeaway: How GenAI and Vibe Coding Accelerate Prototyping Across Technical Skill Levels. In Proceedings of the 2026 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. doi:10.1145/3772318. 3790757 · DOI
  29. Gábor Kusper and Csaba Szabó. 2025. Vibe Coding in Education. In 2025 International Conference on Emerging eLearning Technologies and Applications (ICETA). 506-511. doi:10.1109/ICETA67772.2025.11280285 · DOI
  30. Jie Li, Youyang Hou, Laura Lin, Ruihao Zhu, Hancheng Cao, and Abdallah El Ali. 2026. Vibe Coding for Product Design: Understanding Product Team Members' Perceptions of AI-Assisted Design and Development. arXiv:2509.10652 [cs.HC] https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.10652 · arXiv
  31. Tianyi Li, Tanay Maheshwari, and Alex Voelker. 2025. User-Centered Design with AI in the Loop: A Case Study of Rapid User Interface Prototyping with "Vibe Coding". arXiv:2507.21012 [cs.HC] https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.21012 · arXiv
  32. Xi Victoria Lin, Chenglong Wang, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Michael D. Ernst. 2018. NL2Bash: A Corpus and Semantic Parser for Natural Language Interface to the Linux Operating System. In Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2018). European Language Resources Association (ELRA), Miyazaki, Japan.
  33. Chenyan Liu, Yun Lin, Jiaxin Chang, Jiawei Liu, Binhang Qi, Bo Jiang, Zhiyong Huang, and Jin Song Dong. 2026. EditFlow: Benchmarking and Optimizing Code Edit Recommendation Systems via Reconstruction of Developer Flows. Proc. ACM Program. Lang. 10, OOPSLA1, Article 141 (April 2026), 28 pages. doi:10.1145/3798249 · DOI
  34. Renkai Ma, Yue You, Xinning Gui, and Yubo Kou. 2023. How Do Users Experience Moderation?: A Systematic Literature Review. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 7, CSCW2 (2023), 1-30.
  35. Yimeng Ma, Yu Huang, and Kevin Leach. 2024. Breaking the Flow: A Study of Interruptions During Software Engineering Activities. In Proceedings of the IEEE/ACM 46th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE '24). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1-12. doi:10.1145/3597503.3639079 ACM SIGSOFT Distinguished Paper Award winner. · DOI · Paper page
  36. Nora McDonald, Sarita Schoenebeck, and Andrea Forte. 2019. Reliability and inter-rater reliability in qualitative research: Norms and guidelines for CSCW and HCI practice. Proceedings of the ACM on human-computer interaction 3, CSCW (2019), 1-23.
  37. Christian Meske, Tobias Hermanns, Esther von der Weiden, Kai-Uwe Loser, and Thorsten Berger. 2025. Vibe Coding as a Reconfiguration of Intent Mediation in Software Development: Definition, Implications, and Research Agenda. arXiv:2507.21928 [cs.SE] https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.21928 · arXiv
  38. André N. Meyer. 2019. Fostering Software Developer Productivity through Awareness Increase and Goal-Setting. Doctoral dissertation. University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland. doi:10.5167/UZH-174312 Available at University of Zurich Open Repository and Archive (ZORA). · DOI
  39. Brad A. Myers, John F. Pane, and Andy Ko. 2004. Natural Programming Languages and Environments. Commun. ACM 47, 9 (2004), 47-52.
  40. Naji Najem, Braden P. Murphy, Hiroshi Otomo, Klaus Schmidt, Christian Pichot, and Olga Sushchenko. 2025. Bridging the Expectation Gap: Characterizing User Misconceptions of LLM-Based Programming Assistants. SSRN preprint (2025). doi:10.5281/ZENODO.17661322 · DOI
  41. Kaia Newman, Sarah Snay, Madeline Endres, Manasvi Parikh, and Andrew Begel. 2025. Disclosure of Neurodivergence in Software Workplaces: a Mixed Methods Study of Forum and Survey Perspectives. In Proceedings of the 27th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility. 1-17.
  42. Kaia Newman, Sarah Snay, Madeline Endres, Manasvi Parikh, and Andrew Begel. 2025. "Get Me in the Groove": a Mixed Methods Study on Supporting Adhd Professional Programmers. In 47th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Software Engineering, ICSE 2025, Ottawa, ON, Canada, April 26 -May 6, 2025. IEEE, 1217-1229. doi:10.1109/ICSE55347.2025.00242 · DOI
  43. Abi Noda, Margaret-Anne Storey, Nicole Forsgren, and Michaela Greiler. 2023. DevEx: What Actually Drives Productivity. ACM Queue 21, 2 (2023). doi:10.1145/3595878 Originally published in Queue vol. 21, no. 2. · DOI
  44. Gabrielle O'Brien. 2025. How Scientists Use Large Language Models to Program. In Proceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1-16.
  45. Gabrielle O'Brien, Antonio Pedro Santos Alves, Sebastian Baltes, Grischa Liebel, Mircea Lungu, and Marcos Kalinowski. 2025. User Misconceptions of LLM-Based Conversational Programming Assistants. In Proceedings of the Journal Ahead Workshop at ICSE '26. https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.25662 · arXiv
  46. Joanna Paliszkiewicz and Magdalena Mądra-Sawicka. 2016. Impression Management in Social Media: The Example of LinkedIn. Management (18544223) 11, 3 (2016).
  47. Jonathan Parsons, Michael Schrider, Oyebanjo Ogunlela, and Sepideh Ghanavati. 2023. Understanding developers privacy concerns through reddit thread analysis. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.07650 (2023). · arXiv
  48. Kai Petersen and Claes Wohlin. 2011. Measuring the Flow in Lean Software Development. Software: Practice and Experience 41, 9 (August 2011), 975-996. doi:10.1002/spe.975 · DOI
  49. Madison Pickering, Helena Williams, Alison Gan, Weijia He, Hyojae Park, Francisco Piedrahita Velez, Michael L Littman, and Blase Ur. 2025. How Humans Communicate Programming Tasks in Natural Language and Implications For End-User Programming with LLMs. In Proceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1-34.
  50. Kevin Pu, Daniel Lazaro, Ian Arawjo, Haijun Xia, Ziang Xiao, Tovi Grossman, and Yan Chen. 2025. Assistance or disruption? exploring and evaluating the design and trade-offs of proactive ai programming support. In Proceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1-21.
  51. Nathalie Riche, Anna Offenwanger, Frederic Gmeiner, David Brown, Hugo Romat, Michel Pahud, Nicolai Marquardt, Kori Inkpen, and Ken Hinckley. 2025. AI-Instruments: Embodying Prompts as Instruments to Abstract & Reflect Graphical Interface Commands as General-Purpose Tools. In Proceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1-18.
  52. Saima Ritonummi, Valtteri Siitonen, Markus Salo, and Henri Pirkkalainen. 2024. Exploring Barriers That Prevent Employees from Experiencing Flow in the Software Industry. Journal of Workplace Learning 36, 3 (April 2024), 223-238. doi:10.1108/JWL-11-2022-0146 Article publication date: 15 August 2023; Issue publication date: 30 April 2024. · DOI
  53. Steven I Ross, Fernando Martinez, Stephanie Houde, Michael Muller, and Justin D Weisz. 2023. The programmer's assistant: Conversational interaction with a large language model for software development. In Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces. 491-514. Manuscript submitted to ACM
  54. Cindy Royal. 2026. Integrating Vibe Coding and Flow Theory: A Student-Centered Model for AI-Augmented Coding Education. Journalism & Mass Communication Educator (2026). doi:10.1177/10776958251407389 · DOI
  55. Paul Rozin and Edward B Royzman. 2001. Negativity bias, negativity dominance, and contagion. Personality and social psychology review 5, 4 (2001), 296-320.
  56. Marisa Salanova, Alma M. Rodríguez-Sánchez, Wilmar B. Schaufeli, and Eva Cifre. 2014. Flowing Together: A Longitudinal Study of Collective Efficacy and Collective Flow Among Workgroups. Journal of Psychology 148, 4 (2014), 435-455. doi:10.1080/00223980.2013.806290 · DOI
  57. Ranjan Sapkota, Konstantinos I. Roumeliotis, and Manoj Karkee. 2025. Vibe Coding vs. Agentic Coding: Fundamentals and Practical Implications of Agentic AI. arXiv:2505.19443 [cs.SE] https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.19443 · arXiv
  58. Advait Sarkar and Ian Drosos. 2025. Vibe coding: programming through conversation with artificial intelligence. arXiv:2506.23253 [cs.HC] https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.23253 · arXiv
  59. Limor Shifman. 2013. Memes in a digital world: Reconciling with a conceptual troublemaker. Journal of computer-mediated communication 18, 3 (2013), 362-377.
  60. Michael Silverstein. 2003. Indexical order and the dialectics of sociolinguistic life. Language & communication 23, 3-4 (2003), 193-229.
  61. Armando Solar-Lezama. 2008. Program Synthesis by Sketching. Ph. D. Dissertation. UC Berkeley.
  62. Ningzhi Tang, Chaoran Chen, Zihan Fang, Gelei Xu, Maria Dhakal, Yiyu Shi, Collin McMillan, Yu Huang, and Toby Jia-Jun Li. 2026. Programming by Chat: A Large-Scale Behavioral Analysis of 11,579 Real-World AI-Assisted IDE Sessions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.00436 (2026). https: //arxiv.org/abs/2604.00436 · arXiv
  63. Christoph Treude and Margaret-Anne Storey. 2025. Generative AI and Empirical Software Engineering: A Paradigm Shift. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on AI-Powered Software (AIware). doi:10.1109/AIware64474.2025.00012 · DOI
  64. Priyan Vaithilingam, Tianyi Zhang, and Elena L Glassman. 2022. Expectation vs. experience: Evaluating the usability of code generation tools powered by large language models. In Chi conference on human factors in computing systems extended abstracts. 1-7.
  65. Maike Vollstedt and Sebastian Rezat. 2019. An introduction to grounded theory with a special focus on axial coding and the coding paradigm. Compendium for early career researchers in mathematics education 13, 1 (2019), 81-100.
  66. Etienne Wenger. 1998. Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. doi:10.1017/ CBO9780511803932 · DOI · Paper page
  67. Terry Winograd. 1972. Procedures as a Representation for Data in a Computer Program for Understanding Natural Language. Ph. D. Dissertation. MIT. MIT AI Technical Report 235, Published in Cognitive Psychology Vol. 3.
  68. William A. Woods. 1973. Progress in Natural Language Understanding: An Application to Lunar Geology. In AFIPS Conference Proceedings, Vol. 42. 441-450. National Computer Conference and Exposition.
  69. Feiyang Xu, Poonacha K Medappa, Murat M Tunc, Martijn Vroegindeweij, and Jan C Fransoo. 2025. AI-assisted Programming May Decrease the Productivity of Experienced Developers by Increasing Maintenance Burden. arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.10165 (2025). · arXiv
  70. Ryan Yen, Jian Zhao, and Daniel Vogel. 2025. Code Shaping: Iterative Code Editing with Free-form AI-Interpreted Sketching. In Proceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1-17.
  71. Pengcheng Yin, Bowen Deng, Edgar Chen, Bogdan Vasilescu, and Graham Neubig. 2018. Learning to Mine Aligned Code and Natural Language Pairs from Stack Overflow. In Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Mining Software Repositories. ACM, 476-486.
  72. Tao Yu, Rui Zhang, Kai Yang, Michihiro Yasunaga, Dongxu Wang, Zifan Li, James Ma, Irene Li, Qingning Yao, Shanelle Roman, Zilin Zhang, and Dragomir Radev. 2018. Spider: A Large-Scale Human-Labeled Dataset for Complex and Cross-Domain Semantic Parsing and Text-to-SQL Task. In Proceedings of the 2018 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. Association for Computational Linguistics, 3911-3921.
  73. JD Zamfirescu-Pereira, Eunice Jun, Michael Terry, Qian Yang, and Björn Hartmann. 2025. Beyond code generation: Llm-supported exploration of the program design space. In Proceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1-17.
  74. Luke S. Zettlemoyer and Michael Collins. 2005. Learning to Map Sentences to Logical Form: Structured Classification with Probabilistic Categorial Grammars. In Proceedings of the Twenty-First Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence. 658-666.
  75. Luke S. Zettlemoyer and Michael Collins. 2007. Online Learning of Relaxed CCG Grammars for Parsing to Logical Form. In Proceedings of the 2007 Joint Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and Computational Natural Language Learning. 678-687.
  76. Xinqi Zhang, Hari Subramonyam, Advait Sarkar, Ian Drosos, Jack Wang, Kyungho Lee, Veronica Pimenova, Xiang "Anthony" Chen, and Kai Lukoff. 2026. Generative Design and Vibe Coding: Rethinking The Design-Development Divide for UI Prototyping. In Extended Abstracts of the 2026 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. doi:10.1145/3772363.3778802 · DOI
  77. Manuela Züger, Will Snipes, Christopher Corley, André Meyer, Boyang Li, Thomas Fritz, David Shepherd, Vinay Augustine, Patrick Francis, and Nicholas Kraft. 2017. Reducing Interruptions at Work: A Large-Scale Field Study of FlowLight. 61-72. doi:10.1145/3025453.3025662 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Pimenova, V., Fakhoury, S., Bird, C., Storey, M.-A., & Endres, M.
Affiliations
  • University of Michigan (US)
  • University of Victoria (CA)
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2025
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2509.12491
arXiv
2509.12491
OpenAlex
W4415315987
Cited by
6
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 6
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Techniques and Practices
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Research
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Teaching and Learning Programming
Keywords
vibe coding, natural language programming, AI-assisted software development, co-creation, developer experience, AI-assisted code review, debugging, specifications, collaborative software development

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