User Centric Evaluation of Code Generation Tools
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
With the rapid advance of machine learning (ML) technology, large language models (LLMs) are increasingly explored as an intelligent tool to generate program code from natural language specifications. However, existing evaluations of LLMs have focused on their capabilities in comparison with humans. It is desirable to evaluate their usability when deciding on whether to use a LLM in software production. This paper proposes a user centric method for this purpose. It includes metadata in the test cases of a benchmark to describe their usages, conducts testing in a multi-attempt process that mimics the uses of LLMs, measures LLM generated solutions on a set of quality attributes that reflect usability, and evaluates the performance based on user experiences in the uses of LLMs as a tool. The paper also reports a case study with the method in the evaluation of ChatGPT's usability as a code generation tool for the R programming language. Our experiments demonstrated that ChatGPT is highly useful for generating R program code although it may fail on hard programming tasks. The user experiences are good with overall average number of attempts being 1.61 and the average time of completion being 47.02 seconds. Our experiments also found that the weakest aspect of usability is conciseness, which has a score of 3.80 out of 5.
Key facts. Cited by 4 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 26 of its 43 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 5 Feb 2024.
Builds on
26 of 43 references.
References · 26
- 2020Language Models are Few-Shot Learnerscited by 32,199
- 2021Training Verifiers to Solve Math Word Problemscited by 9,743
- 2021Evaluating Large Language Models Trained on Codecited by 8,053
- 2021Measuring Mathematical Problem Solving With the MATH Datasetcited by 5,203
- 2019HellaSwag: Can a Machine Really Finish Your Sentence?cited by 4,018
- 2021Program Synthesis with Large Language Modelscited by 3,509
- 2022Survey of Hallucination in Natural Language Generationcited by 2,056
- 2022Beyond the Imitation Game: Quantifying and extrapolating the capabilities of language modelscited by 1,970
- 2022Competition-Level Code Generation with AlphaCodecited by 1,427
- 2023Is Your Code Generated by ChatGPT Really Correct? Rigorous Evaluation of Large Language Models for Code Generationcited by 1,332
- 2023A Multitask, Multilingual, Multimodal Evaluation of ChatGPT on Reasoning, Hallucination, and Interactivitycited by 888
- 2019DROP: A Reading Comprehension Benchmark Requiring Discrete Reasoning Over Paragraphscited by 883
14 more
- 2021Measuring Coding Challenge Competence With APPScited by 879
- 2023StarCoder: may the source be with you!cited by 790
- 2022InCoder: A Generative Model for Code Infilling and Synthesiscited by 492
- 2020CodeBLEU: a Method for Automatic Evaluation of Code Synthesiscited by 468
- 2022DS-1000: A Natural and Reliable Benchmark for Data Science Code Generationcited by 442
- 2022A Systematic Evaluation of Large Language Models of Codecited by 360
- 2020Unsupervised Translation of Programming Languagescited by 262
- 2023InterCode: Standardizing and Benchmarking Interactive Coding with Execution Feedbackcited by 229
- 2023An Empirical Evaluation of Using Large Language Models for Automated Unit Test Generationcited by 193
- 2019SPoC: Search-based Pseudocode to Codecited by 176
- 2023ClassEval: A Manually-Crafted Benchmark for Evaluating LLMs on Class-level Code Generationcited by 166
- 2022Large Language Models Meet NL2Code: A Surveycited by 135
- 2023A Systematic Study and Comprehensive Evaluation of ChatGPT on Benchmark Datasetscited by 123
- 2023A Scenario-Based Functional Testing Approach to Improving DNN Performancecited by 7
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2025: 3; 2026: 1.
4 papers.
- 2025Investigating The Smells of LLM Generated Codecited by 9
- 2025Prompt, Divide, and Conquer: Bypassing Large Language Model Safety Filters via Segmented and Distributed Prompt Processingcited by 5
- 2025ChatGPT and U(X): A Rapid Review on Measuring the User Experiencecited by 1
- 2026CriterAlign: Criterion-Centric Rationale Alignment for Code Preference Judgingcited by 0
- 2026CriterAlign: Criterion-Centric Rationale Alignment for Code Preference Judging19 May 2026
- 2025Investigating The Smells of LLM Generated Code3 Oct 2025
- 2025Prompt, Divide, and Conquer: Bypassing Large Language Model Safety Filters via Segmented and Distributed Prompt Processing27 Mar 2025
- 2025ChatGPT and U(X): A Rapid Review on Measuring the User Experience20 Mar 2025