The reviewed record of science sign in
Pith

arxiv: 2410.12944 · v3 · pith:IHYJDSQZ · submitted 2024-10-16 · cs.SE · cs.HC

How much does AI impact development speed? An enterprise-based randomized controlled trial

Elise Paradis , Kate Grey , Quinn Madison , Daye Nam , Andrew Macvean , Vahid Meimand , Nan Zhang , Ben Ferrari-Church
show 1 more author
Satish Chandra
This is my paper

Reviewed by Pithpith:IHYJDSQZopen to challenge →

classification cs.SE cs.HC
keywords effectimpacttasktimedeveloperdevelopersfoundacross
0
0 comments X
read the original abstract

How much does AI assistance impact developer productivity? To date, the software engineering literature has provided a range of answers, targeting a diversity of outcomes: from perceived productivity to speed on task and developer throughput. Our randomized controlled trial with 96 full-time Google software engineers contributes to this literature by sharing an estimate of the impact of three AI features on the time developers spent on a complex, enterprise-grade task. We found that AI significantly shortened the time developers spent on task. Our best estimate of the size of this effect, controlling for factors known to influence developer time on task, stands at about 21\%, although our confidence interval is large. We also found an interesting effect whereby developers who spend more hours on code-related activities per day were faster with AI. Product and future research considerations are discussed. In particular, we invite further research that explores the impact of AI at the ecosystem level and across multiple suites of AI-enhanced tools, since we cannot assume that the effect size obtained in our lab study will necessarily apply more broadly, or that the effect of AI found using internal Google tooling in the summer of 2024 will translate across tools and over time.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 5 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. RubberDuckBench: A Benchmark for AI Coding Assistants

    cs.SE 2026-01 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    RubberDuckBench shows top AI models score around 68% on real GitHub coding questions, rarely answer completely correctly, and hallucinate in 58% of responses on average.

  2. Multi-agent AI systems outperform human teams in creativity

    cs.CL 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Multi-agent LLM teams outperform human teams in creativity (d=1.50) across tasks by producing more novel ideas, with distinct semantic exploration patterns predicting success for each group.

  3. A meta-analysis of the effect of generative AI on productivity and learning in programming

    cs.SE 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Meta-analysis of 23 studies shows moderate productivity gains from GenAI coding assistants (Hedges' g=0.33) but no significant effect on learning (g=0.14).

  4. The Productivity-Reliability Paradox: Specification-Driven Governance for AI-Augmented Software Development

    cs.SE 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    The Productivity-Reliability Paradox arises because AI code generators produce variable output while developers lack sufficient specification discipline, making governance models focused on specifications the binding ...

  5. Agentic Agile-V: From Vibe Coding to Verified Engineering in Software and Hardware Development

    cs.SE 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 4.0

    Agentic Agile-V uses Agile-V as backbone and a Specify-Constrain-Orchestrate-Prove-Evolve-Verify loop to convert AI agent conversations into traceable engineering artifacts with acceptance evidence.