"My productivity is boosted, but ..." Demystifying Users' Perception on AI Coding Assistants

This paper aims to explore fundamental questions in the era when AI coding assistants like GitHub Copilot are widely adopted: what do developers truly value and criticize in AI coding assistants, and what does this reveal about their needs and expectations in real-world software development? Unlike previous studies that conduct observational research in controlled and simulated environments, we analyze extensive, first-hand user reviews of AI coding assistants, which capture developers' authentic perspectives and experiences drawn directly from their actual day-to-day work contexts. We identify 1,085 AI coding assistants from the Visual Studio Code Marketplace. Although they only account for 1.64% of all extensions, we observe a surge in these assistants: over 90% of them are released within the past two years. We then manually analyze the user reviews sampled from 32 AI coding assistants that have sufficient installations and reviews to construct a comprehensive taxonomy of user concerns and feedback about these assistants. We manually annotate each review's attitude when mentioning certain aspects of coding assistants, yielding nuanced insights into user satisfaction and dissatisfaction regarding specific features, concerns, and overall tool performance. Built on top of the findings-including how users demand not just intelligent suggestions but also context-aware, customizable, and resource-efficient interactions-we propose five practical implications and suggestions to guide the enhancement of AI coding assistants that satisfy user needs.

LessLeak-Bench: A First Investigation of Data Leakage in LLMs Across 83 Software Engineering Benchmarks

Large Language Models (LLMs) are widely utilized in software engineering (SE) tasks, such as code generation and automated program repair. However, their reliance on extensive and often undisclosed pre-training datasets raises significant concerns about data leakage, where the evaluation benchmark data is unintentionally ``seen'' by LLMs during the model's construction phase. The data leakage issue could largely undermine the validity of LLM-based research and evaluations. Despite the increasing use of LLMs in the SE community, there is no comprehensive study that assesses the extent of data leakage in SE benchmarks for LLMs yet. To address this gap, this paper presents the first large-scale analysis of data leakage in 83 SE benchmarks concerning LLMs. Our results show that in general, data leakage in SE benchmarks is minimal, with average leakage ratios of only 4.8\%, 2.8\%, and 0.7\% for Python, Java, and C/C++ benchmarks, respectively. However, some benchmarks exhibit relatively higher leakage ratios, which raises concerns about their bias in evaluation. For instance, QuixBugs and BigCloneBench have leakage ratios of 100.0\% and 55.7\%, respectively. Furthermore, we observe that data leakage has a substantial impact on LLM evaluation. We also identify key causes of high data leakage, such as the direct inclusion of benchmark data in pre-training datasets and the use of coding platforms like LeetCode for benchmark construction. To address the data leakage, we introduce \textbf{LessLeak-Bench}, a new benchmark that removes leaked samples from the 83 SE benchmarks, enabling more reliable LLM evaluations in future research. Our study enhances the understanding of data leakage in SE benchmarks and provides valuable insights for future research involving LLMs in SE.