AI support for data scientists: An empirical study on workflow and alternative code recommendations

Abstract

Despite the popularity of AI assistants for coding activities, there is limited empirical work on whether these coding assistants can help users complete data science tasks. Moreover, in data science programming, exploring alternative paths has been widely advocated, as such paths may lead to diverse understandings and conclusions (Gelman and Loken 2013; Kale et al. 2019). Whether existing AI-based coding assistants can support data scientists in exploring the relevant alternative paths remains unexplored. To fill this gap, we conducted a mixed-methods study to understand how data scientists solved different data science tasks with the help of an AI-based coding assistant that provides explicit alternatives as recommendations throughout the data science workflow. Specifically, we quantitatively investigated whether the users accept the code recommendations, including alternative recommendations, by the AI assistant and whether the recommendations are helpful when completing descriptive and predictive data science tasks. Through the empirical study, we also investigated if including information about the data science step (e.g., data exploration) they seek recommendations for in a prompt leads to helpful recommendations. In our study, we found that including the data science step in a prompt had a statistically significant improvement in the acceptance of recommendations, whereas the presence of alternatives did not lead to any significant differences. Our study also shows a statistically significant difference in the acceptance and usefulness of recommendations between descriptive and predictive tasks. Participants generally had positive sentiments regarding AI assistance and our proposed interface. We share further insights on the interactions that emerged during the study and the challenges that our users encountered while solving their data science tasks. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10664-025-10622-4.

Ähnliche Arbeiten