mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

A survey of generative AI adoption and perceived productivity among scientists who program

arXiv 2512.19644 ↗First posted 22 Dec 2025cs.SE cs.HCcited by 3

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Programming is essential to modern scientific research, yet most scientists report inadequate training for the software development their work demands. Generative AI tools capable of code generation may support scientific programmers, but user studies indicate risks of over-reliance, particularly among inexperienced users. We surveyed 868 scientists who program, examining adoption patterns, tool preferences, and factors associated with perceived productivity. Adoption is highest among students and less experienced programmers, with variation across fields. Scientific programmers overwhelmingly prefer general-purpose conversational interfaces like ChatGPT over developer-specific tools. Both inexperience and limited use of development practices (like testing, code review, and version control) are associated with greater perceived productivity -- but these factors interact, suggesting formal practices may partially compensate for inexperience. The strongest predictor of perceived productivity is the number of lines of generated code typically accepted at once. These findings suggest scientific programmers using generative AI may gauge productivity by code generation rather than validation.

Key facts. Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 22 Dec 2025.

Builds on

No reference list yet.

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 3.

3 papers.