Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2603.25146

Factors Influencing the Quality of AI-Generated Code: A Synthesis of Empirical Evidence

Vehid Geruslu·Zulfiyya Aliyeva·Eray Tüzün
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Context: The rapid adoption of AI-assisted code generation tools, such as large language models (LLMs), is transforming software development practices. While these tools promise significant productivity gains, concerns regarding the quality, reliability, and security of AI-generated code are increasingly reported in both academia and industry. --Objective: This study aims to systematically synthesize existing empirical evidence on the factors influencing the quality of AI-generated source code and to analyze how these factors impact software quality outcomes across different evaluation contexts. --Method: We conducted a systematic literature review (SLR) following established guidelines, supported by an AI-assisted workflow with human oversight. A total of 24 primary studies were selected through a structured search and screening process across major digital libraries. Data were extracted and analyzed using qualitative, pattern-based evidence synthesis. --Results: The findings reveal that code quality in AI-assisted development is influenced by a combination of human factors, AI system characteristics, and human AI interaction dynamics. Key influencing factors include prompt design, task specification, and developer expertise. The results also show variability in quality outcomes such as correctness, security, maintainability, and complexity across studies, with both improvements and risks reported. --Conclusion: AI-assisted code generation represents a socio-technical shift in software engineering, where achieving high-quality outcomes depends on both technological and human factors. While promising, AI-generated code requires careful validation and integration into development workflows.

Explore related subjects

cs.SEcs.AI

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Vehid Geruslu, Zulfiyya Aliyeva, Eray Tüzün. 2026-03-26. Factors Influencing the Quality of AI-Generated Code: A Synthesis of Empirical Evidence. https://arxiv.org/abs/2603.25146

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Is Vibe Coding Safe? Benchmarking Vulnerability of Agent-Generated Code in Real-World Tasks

Vibe coding is a new software development paradigm in which human engineers prompt a large language model (LLM) agent to complete complex coding tasks with little supervision. Although vibe coding is increasingly adopted, is the generated code really safe to deploy in production? To investigate this question, we propose SUSVIBES, a benchmark consisting of 186 feature-request software engineering tasks from real-world open-source projects, for which, human programmers committed vulnerable implementations. We evaluate 12 widely used coding agentic settings with frontier models on the benchmark. Disturbingly, all agents perform poorly in terms of software security. Although 57% of the solutions from SWE-Agent with Claude 4 Sonnet are functionally correct, only 11.8% are secure. Further experiments demonstrate that preliminary security strategies, such as augmenting the feature request with vulnerability hints, cannot mitigate these security issues. Our findings raise serious concerns about the widespread adoption of vibe coding, particularly in security-sensitive applications. The code and dataset are available at https://github.com/LeiLiLab/susvibes. The leaderboard is at https://leililab.github.io/susvibes-leaderboard.

cs.SE↗
arXiv2026

Why3-py: A Tool for Formal Verification of Hypothesis Testing and Meta-Analysis in Python

The reproducibility crisis in scientific research has received widespread recognition, thereby increasing the importance of meta-analyses that integrate statistical analyses from multiple studies. However, statistical methods often have ambiguous and implicit underlying assumptions, which can lead to their erroneous applications and interpretations. To address this issue, we propose a formal verification framework for statistical Python programs. Specifically, we present Why3-py, a Python front-end for the Why3 verification platform that transforms Python code into verification-oriented WhyML representations, addressing the challenges arising from Python's dynamic typing and runtime polymorphism. Furthermore, we extend the StatWhy tool to support the verification of meta-analysis methods. These tools enable meta-analysts to identify overlooked assumptions and misuse of analyses, and to verify the correct use of hypothesis testing and meta-analysis methods in Python code.

cs.SE↗
arXiv2026

What is the Difference Between Me and You? Benchmarking the Quality Gap Between Human-Written and AI-Generated Code

AI coding assistants are becoming co-authors of production software, yet their evaluation centers on functional correctness, leaving open whether their code differs from human code in the quality dimensions dominating lifecycle cost. We compare human-written and AI-generated code at scale: 787,562 function pairs across Python, Java, and C, each human function mined from open-source repositories paired with implementations generated from its docstring by three AI assistants (OpenAI GPT models, DeepSeek-Coder, Qwen2.5-Coder). We characterize structural complexity and statistical naturalness, and map static-analysis findings onto Orthogonal Defect Classification for defects and the Common Weakness Enumeration for vulnerabilities, making authors and languages directly comparable. AI-generated code is structurally compressed and stylistically templated: roughly half the size and branching of human code, clustering apart at the style level. Defect profiles differ in kind: human code concentrates issues of mature codebases, AI code repetitive boilerplate; security is language-dependent, with LLMs producing more, and more severe, findings in Python and Java but fewer high-severity memory-safety findings than humans in C. Once size is controlled for, complexity metrics carry little signal, while naturalness separates authors. Finally, we release CQBench, a benchmark of 27,346 issue-prone tasks with baselines and an evaluation pipeline for quality assurance and security testing.

cs.SE↗