Don’t settle for the first! How many GitHub Copilot solutions should you check?

IF 3.8 2区 计算机科学 Q2 COMPUTER SCIENCE, INFORMATION SYSTEMS
Julian Oertel , Jil Klünder , Regina Hebig
{"title":"Don’t settle for the first! How many GitHub Copilot solutions should you check?","authors":"Julian Oertel ,&nbsp;Jil Klünder ,&nbsp;Regina Hebig","doi":"10.1016/j.infsof.2025.107737","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Context:</h3><div>With the integration of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) tools such as GitHub Copilot into development processes, developers can be supported when writing code.</div></div><div><h3>Objectives:</h3><div>As GitHub Copilot has a feature to provide up to ten solutions at once, we explore, how developers should approach those solutions with the goal of providing recommendations to achieve suitable trade-offs in finding correct solutions and checking solutions.</div></div><div><h3>Methods:</h3><div>In this study, we analyze a total of 2025 coding problems provided by LeetCode and 17<!--> <!-->048 solutions to solve these problems generated by GitHub Copilot in Python. We focus on three key issues: firstly, whether it is beneficial to consider multiple solutions; secondly, the impact of the position of a solution; and thirdly, the number of solutions that should be checked by a developer.</div></div><div><h3>Results:</h3><div>Overall, our results point to the following observations: (1) solutions are not less likely to be correct if they appear at later positions; (2) when looking for a solution to a common problem, checking four to five solutions is generally enough; (3) novel or difficult problems are unlikely to be solved by GitHub Copilot; (4) skipping the first solution is advised when considering only one solution, as the first solution is less likely to be correct; and (5) checking all solutions is necessary to not miss correct solutions, but the effort is usually not justified.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion:</h3><div>Based on our study, we conclude that there is potential for improvement in better supporting developers. For instance, there are few cases where ten generated solutions provide more value than fewer solutions. Depending on the use scenario, it could be more useful if GitHub Copilot allowed developers to request a single, comprehensive solution.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":54983,"journal":{"name":"Information and Software Technology","volume":"183 ","pages":"Article 107737"},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Information and Software Technology","FirstCategoryId":"94","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S095058492500076X","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"计算机科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"COMPUTER SCIENCE, INFORMATION SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Context:

With the integration of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) tools such as GitHub Copilot into development processes, developers can be supported when writing code.

Objectives:

As GitHub Copilot has a feature to provide up to ten solutions at once, we explore, how developers should approach those solutions with the goal of providing recommendations to achieve suitable trade-offs in finding correct solutions and checking solutions.

Methods:

In this study, we analyze a total of 2025 coding problems provided by LeetCode and 17 048 solutions to solve these problems generated by GitHub Copilot in Python. We focus on three key issues: firstly, whether it is beneficial to consider multiple solutions; secondly, the impact of the position of a solution; and thirdly, the number of solutions that should be checked by a developer.

Results:

Overall, our results point to the following observations: (1) solutions are not less likely to be correct if they appear at later positions; (2) when looking for a solution to a common problem, checking four to five solutions is generally enough; (3) novel or difficult problems are unlikely to be solved by GitHub Copilot; (4) skipping the first solution is advised when considering only one solution, as the first solution is less likely to be correct; and (5) checking all solutions is necessary to not miss correct solutions, but the effort is usually not justified.

Conclusion:

Based on our study, we conclude that there is potential for improvement in better supporting developers. For instance, there are few cases where ten generated solutions provide more value than fewer solutions. Depending on the use scenario, it could be more useful if GitHub Copilot allowed developers to request a single, comprehensive solution.
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Information and Software Technology
Information and Software Technology 工程技术-计算机:软件工程
CiteScore
9.10
自引率
7.70%
发文量
164
审稿时长
9.6 weeks
期刊介绍: Information and Software Technology is the international archival journal focusing on research and experience that contributes to the improvement of software development practices. The journal''s scope includes methods and techniques to better engineer software and manage its development. Articles submitted for review should have a clear component of software engineering or address ways to improve the engineering and management of software development. Areas covered by the journal include: • Software management, quality and metrics, • Software processes, • Software architecture, modelling, specification, design and programming • Functional and non-functional software requirements • Software testing and verification & validation • Empirical studies of all aspects of engineering and managing software development Short Communications is a new section dedicated to short papers addressing new ideas, controversial opinions, "Negative" results and much more. Read the Guide for authors for more information. The journal encourages and welcomes submissions of systematic literature studies (reviews and maps) within the scope of the journal. Information and Software Technology is the premiere outlet for systematic literature studies in software engineering.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信