arXiv subjects

Elizaveta Artser

Publications and source records attributed to Elizaveta Artser.

5 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Enhancing Debugging Skills with AI-Powered Assistance: A Real-Time Tool for Debugging Support

Debugging is a crucial skill in programming education and software development, yet it is often overlooked in CS curricula. To address this, we introduce an AI-powered debugging assistant integrated into an IDE. It offers real-time support by analyzing code, suggesting breakpoints, and providing contextual hints. Using RAG with LLMs, program slicing, and custom heuristics, it enhances efficiency by minimizing LLM calls and improving accuracy. A three-level evaluation - technical analysis, UX study, and classroom tests - highlights its potential for teaching debugging.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2025

KOALA: a Configurable Tool for Collecting IDE Data When Solving Programming Tasks

Collecting data of students solving programming tasks is incredibly valuable for researchers and educators. It allows verifying that the students correctly apply the features and concepts they are taught, or finding students' misconceptions. However, existing data collection tools have limitations, e.g., no control over the granularity of the collected code, not collecting the specific events of the programming environment used, and overall being hard to configure. To overcome these limitations, we propose KOALA, a convenient and highly configurable tool for collecting code snapshots and feature usage from students solving programming tasks in JetBrains IDEs. The plugin can be installed in IDEs and configured to provide the students with the necessary tasks, enable or disable certain IDE features like code completion, and run surveys. During problem solving, the plugin collects code snapshots at the configured granularity, all IDE actions like running and debugging, as well as some data not collected in prior works, like employed hotkeys and switching focus between files. The collected data is sent to the server that comes with the tool, where it is stored and can be converted to the standardized ProgSnap2 format. To showcase the tool, we collected data from 28 students solving tasks in two courses within the IDE, highlighting some insights from this data.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2024

Clustering MOOC Programming Solutions to Diversify Their Presentation to Students

In many MOOCs, whenever a student completes a programming task, they can see previous solutions of other students to find potentially different ways of solving the problem and to learn new coding constructs. However, a lot of MOOCs simply show the most recent solutions, disregarding their diversity or quality, and thus hindering the students' opportunity to learn. In this work, we explore this novel problem for the first time. To solve it, we adapted the existing plagiarism detection tool JPlag to Python submissions on Hyperskill, a popular MOOC platform. However, due to the tool's inner algorithm, JPLag fully processed only 46 out of 867 studied tasks. Therefore, we developed our own tool called Rhubarb. This tool first standardizes solutions that are algorithmically the same, then calculates the structure-aware edit distance between them, and then applies clustering. Finally, it selects one example from each of the largest clusters, thus ensuring their diversity. Rhubarb was able to handle all 867 tasks successfully. We compared different approaches on a set of 59 real-life tasks that both tools could process. Eight experts rated the selected solutions based on diversity, code quality, and usefulness. The default platform approach of simply selecting recent submissions received on average 3.12 out of 5, JPlag - 3.77, Rhubarb - 3.50. To ensure both quality and coverage, we created a system that combines both tools. We conclude our work by discussing the future of this new problem and the research needed to solve it better.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2024

One Step at a Time: Combining LLMs and Static Analysis to Generate Next-Step Hints for Programming Tasks

Students often struggle with solving programming problems when learning to code, especially when they have to do it online, with one of the most common disadvantages of working online being the lack of personalized help. This help can be provided as next-step hint generation, i.e., showing a student what specific small step they need to do next to get to the correct solution. There are many ways to generate such hints, with large language models (LLMs) being among the most actively studied right now. While LLMs constitute a promising technology for providing personalized help, combining them with other techniques, such as static analysis, can significantly improve the output quality. In this work, we utilize this idea and propose a novel system to provide both textual and code hints for programming tasks. The pipeline of the proposed approach uses a chain-of-thought prompting technique and consists of three distinct steps: (1) generating subgoals - a list of actions to proceed with the task from the current student's solution, (2) generating the code to achieve the next subgoal, and (3) generating the text to describe this needed action. During the second step, we apply static analysis to the generated code to control its size and quality. The tool is implemented as a modification to the open-source JetBrains Academy plugin, supporting students in their in-IDE courses. To evaluate our approach, we propose a list of criteria for all steps in our pipeline and conduct two rounds of expert validation. Finally, we evaluate the next-step hints in a classroom with 14 students from two universities. Our results show that both forms of the hints - textual and code - were helpful for the students, and the proposed system helped them to proceed with the coding tasks.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2023

Detecting Code Quality Issues in Pre-written Templates of Programming Tasks in Online Courses

In this work, we developed an algorithm for detecting code quality issues in the templates of online programming tasks, validated it, and conducted an empirical study on the dataset of student solutions. The algorithm consists of analyzing recurring unfixed issues in solutions of different students, matching them with the code of the template, and then filtering the results. Our manual validation on a subset of tasks demonstrated a precision of 80.8% and a recall of 73.3%. We used the algorithm on 415 Java tasks from the JetBrains Academy platform and discovered that as much as 14.7% of tasks have at least one issue in their template, thus making it harder for students to learn good code quality practices. We describe our results in detail, provide several motivating examples and specific cases, and share the feedback of the developers of the platform, who fixed 51 issues based on the output of our approach.

cs.SE↗