mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

How Readable is Model-generated Code? Examining Readability and Visual Inspection of GitHub Copilot

arXiv 2208.14613 ↗First posted 31 Aug 2022cs.SEcited by 14

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Background: Recent advancements in large language models have motivated the practical use of such models in code generation and program synthesis. However, little is known about the effects of such tools on code readability and visual attention in practice. Objective: In this paper, we focus on GitHub Copilot to address the issues of readability and visual inspection of model generated code. Readability and low complexity are vital aspects of good source code, and visual inspection of generated code is important in light of automation bias. Method: Through a human experiment (n=21) we compare model generated code to code written completely by human programmers. We use a combination of static code analysis and human annotators to assess code readability, and we use eye tracking to assess the visual inspection of code. Results: Our results suggest that model generated code is comparable in complexity and readability to code written by human pair programmers. At the same time, eye tracking data suggests, to a statistically significant level, that programmers direct less visual attention to model generated code. Conclusion: Our findings highlight that reading code is more important than ever, and programmers should beware of complacency and automation bias with model generated code.

Key facts. Cited by 14 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 31 Aug 2022.

Builds on

No reference list yet.

Built on by

Cited by year

Citing papers per year: 2023: 5; 2024: 5; 2025: 4.

14 papers.

Sort:

  1. 2024"I'm Not Sure, But...": Examining the Impact of Large Language Models' Uncertainty Expression on User Reliance and Trustcited by 67
  2. 2023RepoFusion: Training Code Models to Understand Your Repositorycited by 40
  3. 2024NoFunEval: Funny How Code LMs Falter on Requirements Beyond Functional Correctnesscited by 23
  4. 2024PerfCodeGen: Improving Performance of LLM Generated Code with Execution Feedbackcited by 22
  5. 2023Generation Probabilities Are Not Enough: Uncertainty Highlighting in AI Code Completionscited by 20
  6. 2023Is AI the better programming partner? Human-Human Pair Programming vs. Human-AI pAIr Programmingcited by 20
  7. 2024Just another copy and paste? Comparing the security vulnerabilities of ChatGPT generated code and StackOverflow answerscited by 12
  8. 2024BISCUIT: Scaffolding LLM-Generated Code with Ephemeral UIs in Computational Notebookscited by 12
  9. 2023R-U-SURE? Uncertainty-Aware Code Suggestions By Maximizing Utility Across Random User Intentscited by 10
  10. 2023Can ChatGPT Pass An Introductory Level Functional Language Programming Course?cited by 9
  11. 2025Human-AI Experience in Integrated Development Environments: A Systematic Literature Reviewcited by 5
  12. 2025Do It For Me vs. Do It With Me: Investigating User Perceptions of Different Paradigms of Automation in Copilots for Feature-Rich Softwarecited by 5
2 more
  1. 2025Code Readability in the Age of Large Language Models: An Industrial Case Study from Atlassiancited by 4
  2. 2025Evaluating the Effectiveness of LLMs in Fixing Maintainability Issues in Real-World Projectscited by 4