The Mind Is a Powerful Place: How Showing Code Comprehensibility Metrics Influences Code Understanding
December 16, 2020 ยท Declared Dead ยท ๐ International Conference on Software Engineering
"No code URL or promise found in abstract"
Evidence collected by the PWNC Scanner
Authors
Marvin Wyrich, Andreas Preikschat, Daniel Graziotin, Stefan Wagner
arXiv ID
2012.09590
Category
cs.SE: Software Engineering
Cross-listed
cs.CY,
cs.PL
Citations
18
Venue
International Conference on Software Engineering
Last Checked
3 months ago
Abstract
Static code analysis tools and integrated development environments present developers with quality-related software metrics, some of which describe the understandability of source code. Software metrics influence overarching strategic decisions that impact the future of companies and the prioritization of everyday software development tasks. Several software metrics, however, lack in validation: we just choose to trust that they reflect what they are supposed to measure. Some of them were even shown to not measure the quality aspects they intend to measure. Yet, they influence us through biases in our cognitive-driven actions. In particular, they might anchor us in our decisions. Whether the anchoring effect exists with software metrics has not been studied yet. We conducted a randomized and double-blind experiment to investigate the extent to which a displayed metric value for source code comprehensibility anchors developers in their subjective rating of source code comprehensibility, whether performance is affected by the anchoring effect when working on comprehension tasks, and which individual characteristics might play a role in the anchoring effect. We found that the displayed value of a comprehensibility metric has a significant and large anchoring effect on a developer's code comprehensibility rating. The effect does not seem to affect the time or correctness when working on comprehension questions related to the code snippets under study. Since the anchoring effect is one of the most robust cognitive biases, and we have limited understanding of the consequences of the demonstrated manipulation of developers by non-validated metrics, we call for an increased awareness of the responsibility in code quality reporting and for corresponding tools to be based on scientific evidence.
Community Contributions
Found the code? Know the venue? Think something is wrong? Let us know!
๐ Similar Papers
In the same crypt โ Software Engineering
R.I.P.
๐ป
Ghosted
R.I.P.
๐ป
Ghosted
GraphCodeBERT: Pre-training Code Representations with Data Flow
R.I.P.
๐ป
Ghosted
DeepTest: Automated Testing of Deep-Neural-Network-driven Autonomous Cars
R.I.P.
๐ป
Ghosted
Microservices: yesterday, today, and tomorrow
R.I.P.
๐ป
Ghosted
Devign: Effective Vulnerability Identification by Learning Comprehensive Program Semantics via Graph Neural Networks
R.I.P.
๐ป
Ghosted
A Survey of Machine Learning for Big Code and Naturalness
Died the same way โ ๐ป Ghosted
R.I.P.
๐ป
Ghosted
Language Models are Few-Shot Learners
R.I.P.
๐ป
Ghosted
PyTorch: An Imperative Style, High-Performance Deep Learning Library
R.I.P.
๐ป
Ghosted
XGBoost: A Scalable Tree Boosting System
R.I.P.
๐ป
Ghosted