Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2503.02639

Xavier: Toward Better Coding Assistance in Authoring Tabular Data Wrangling Scripts

Yunfan Zhou·Xiwen Cai·Qiming Shi·Yanwei Huang·Haotian Li·Huamin Qu·Di Weng·Yingcai Wu
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Data analysts frequently employ code completion tools in writing custom scripts to tackle complex tabular data wrangling tasks. However, existing tools do not sufficiently link the data contexts such as schemas and values with the code being edited. This not only leads to poor code suggestions, but also frequent interruptions in coding processes as users need additional code to locate and understand relevant data. We introduce Xavier, a tool designed to enhance data wrangling script authoring in computational notebooks. Xavier maintains users' awareness of data contexts while providing data-aware code suggestions. It automatically highlights the most relevant data based on the user's code, integrates both code and data contexts for more accurate suggestions, and instantly previews data transformation results for easy verification. To evaluate the effectiveness and usability of Xavier, we conducted a user study with 16 data analysts, showing its potential to streamline data wrangling scripts authoring.

Explore related subjects

cs.HC

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Yunfan Zhou, Xiwen Cai, Qiming Shi, Yanwei Huang, Haotian Li, Huamin Qu, Di Weng, Yingcai Wu. 2025-03-04. Xavier: Toward Better Coding Assistance in Authoring Tabular Data Wrangling Scripts. https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.02639

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Explanation Navigator: Rectifying Out-of-Scope Human Interpretations of Leaky AI Explanations through Conversational Guidance

As explanations of artificial intelligence systems proliferate, their recipients must grasp not only what they convey but also recognise what they cannot. We conducted an interview study with nine participants to examine how explainees reason when their information needs exceed the scope of available explanations. Participants often unwittingly confabulated explanatory insights when relevant information was missing from the explanations, not recognising the inherent limitations thereof. We characterise such explanations as leaky explanations -- simplifications that strive to hide complexity yet whose correct interpretation hinges on understanding of the concealed details. To address out-of-scope interpretations we propose Explanation Navigator: a conversational interaction framework that detects mismatches between users' information needs and explanations' content, elucidating pertinent yet implicit details and providing complementary explanations for unmet information needs. An online study with 316 participants showed that our approach allowed explainees to recognise and rectify confabulated explanatory insights, guiding them towards developing correct understanding.

cs.HC↗
arXiv2026

Biased AI improves human performance but reduces perceived helpfulness

Artificial intelligence (AI) increasingly shapes how people think, engage, and evaluate information. To minimize risk, most current systems are designed to present as ideologically neutral with standardized output. Yet growing evidence suggests that these principles suppress cognitive engagement, impair human decision-making, and erode societal diversity. Here we test the opposite approach by deliberately injecting bias into AI assistants. In three randomized experiments with 5,000 participants, biased AI improved human performance relative to default and neutral AI in tasks ranging from misinformation evaluation and financial investment to graduate education. These gains carried a subjective cost. Participants systematically undervalued AI they believed to be biased and inflated the helpfulness of AI they believed to be neutral, regardless of the systems' actual behavior. Interacting with two AIs whose biases flanked the participant's own perspective preserved the performance gains while limiting the subjective cost and one-sided influence. Our findings reveal the strategic value of intentional bias in AI design. Rather than performing a single fair, reliable, and authoritative voice, AI that speaks from specific viewpoints triggers cognitive agency and elevates human-AI performance in judgment, decision-making, and problem-solving.

cs.HC↗
arXiv2026

Learning Password Best Practices Through In-Task Instruction

Users often make security- and privacy-relevant decisions without a clear understanding of the rules that govern safe behavior. We introduce pedagogical friction, a design approach that inserts brief, instructional interactions at the moment of action. We evaluate this approach in the context of password creation, a familiar task with clear quality criteria. We conducted a randomized study with 128 participants across four interface conditions that varied the depth and interactivity of guidance. We assessed three outcomes: (1) rule compliance in a subsequent password task without guidance, (2) accuracy on survey questions tied to password rules, and (3) behavior-knowledge alignment, which captures whether participants who correctly followed a rule also recognized it on the survey. Across the guided conditions, participants corrected most rule violations in the follow-up task and showed high behavior-knowledge alignment. Survey results suggested clearer advantages for some rule types, especially symbol related questions. These results position pedagogical friction as a lightweight intervention for security- and privacy-critical interfaces.

cs.HC↗