Software Engineering

Software fault prediction (SFP) is a critical task in software engineering, enabling early identification of faults in modules to improve software quality and reduce maintenance costs. This research investigates the combined effects of feature selection and parameter tuning on the performance of machine learning (ML) models for SFP. This study evaluates the interaction between feature selection methods, including correlation-based feature selection (CFS), recursive feature elimination (RFE), mutual information (MI), and L1 regularization, where hyperparameter tuning techniques such as grid search, randomized search, and genetic algorithm (GA) are used for optimization of ML algorithms, including random forest (RF), logistic regression (LR), and support vector machines (SVM) for optimized fault prediction performance. The combined application of CFS and GA yielded the highest accuracy, achieving 88.40% with RF, representing an improvement of 18% over baseline models without feature selection or tuning. Feature selection reduced dimensionality and identified critical attributes such as weighted methods per Class (WMC) and coupling between objects (CBO), while iterative parameter tuning optimized model alignment to these feature sets. Notably, the proposed methods demonstrated robustness, with minimal cross-validation variability (+-1.0%), and efficiency, reducing training times in univariate methods such as L1 regularization.

AI-enabled features built on LLMs and agentic workflows are difficult to test, debug, and reproduce, especially for product-focused software engineers without a machine learning background. We present the AI Toolkit plugin for JetBrains IDEs, which brings tracing and evaluation directly into the Run/Debug loop. A mixed methods study with practitioners presents three consistent needs: (1) make evaluation regular and repeatable, (2) expose traces at the moment of execution, and (3) minimize setup and context switching. Guided by these needs, the AI Toolkit introduces an IDE-native workflow: run-triggered trace capture; immediate, hierarchical inspection; one-click "Add to Dataset" from traces; and unit-test-like evaluations with pluggable metrics. The first release in PyCharm shows promising early signals - strong conversion when promoted at Run, sustained usage among those who capture traces, and low churn - suggesting that IDE-native observability lowers activation energy and helps developers adopt disciplined practices. We detail the design and implementation of the AI Agents Debugger and AI Evaluation, report initial adoption telemetry, and outline next steps to broaden framework coverage and scale evaluations. Together, these results indicate that integrating AI observability and evaluation into everyday IDE workflows can make modern AI development accessible to non-ML specialists while preserving software-engineering practices.

We present Curated Industrial Developer Repository (CIDR), a large-scale dataset of real-world software repositories collected through direct collaboration with 12 industrial partner organizations. The dataset comprises 2,440 repositories spanning 138 programming languages and totalling 373 million lines of code, accompanied by structured per-repository metadata. Unlike existing code corpora derived from public open-source platforms, CIDR consists exclusively of proprietary production codebases contributed under formal data sharing agreements, covering application domains including enterprise web and mobile development, fintech, and custom software consultancy. All repositories were processed through a multi-stage pipeline encompassing structured partner onboarding, two-stage quality selection combining automated metadata filtering with manual code review, and a deterministic anonymization pipeline covering the full version control history. The dataset is intended to support research in code intelligence, software quality analysis, pre-training and fine-tuning of code language models, developer behaviour studies, and construction of agent evaluation benchmarks. Access is provided under a restricted commercial license; details are available at https://fermatix.ai/#Contact.

Large language models have achieved remarkable capabilities across diverse tasks, yet their internal decision-making processes remain largely opaque, limiting our ability to inspect, control, and systematically improve them. This opacity motivates a growing body of research in mechanistic interpretability, with sparse autoencoders (SAEs) emerging as one of the most promising tools for decomposing model activations into sparse, interpretable feature representations. We introduce Qwen-Scope, an open-source suite of SAEs built on the Qwen model family, comprising 14 groups of SAEs across 7 model variants from the Qwen3 and Qwen3.5 series, covering both dense and mixture-of-expert architectures. Built on top of these SAEs, we show that SAEs can go beyond post-hoc analysis to serve as practical interfaces for model development along four directions: (i) inference-time steering, where SAE feature directions control language, concepts, and preferences without modifying model weights; (ii) evaluation analysis, where activated SAE features provide a representation-level proxy for benchmark redundancy and capability coverage; (iii) data-centric workflows, where SAE features support multilingual toxicity classification and safety-oriented data synthesis; and (iv) post-training optimization, where SAE-derived signals are incorporated into supervised fine-tuning and reinforcement learning objectives to mitigate undesirable behaviors such as code-switching and repetition. Together, these results demonstrate that SAEs can serve not only as post-hoc analysis tools, but also as reusable representation-level interfaces for diagnosing, controlling, evaluating, and improving large language models. By open-sourcing Qwen-Scope, we aim to support mechanistic research and accelerate practical workflows that connect model internals to downstream behavior.

The rise of agentic AI is reshaping software engineering in two intertwined directions: agents are increasingly applied to support software engineering tasks, and Agentic AI systems themselves are complex systems that require re-thinking currently established software engineering practices. To chart a coherent research agenda covering the two directions, we organized the A2SE seminar in Rio de Janeiro, bringing together 18 experts from academia and industry. Through structured presentations, collaborative topic clustering, and focused group discussions, participants identified six thematic areas: Governance, Software Engineering for Agents, Agents for Software Architecture, Quality and Evaluation, Sustainability, and Code, and they prioritized short-term and long-term research directions for each. This paper presents the resulting community-driven, opinionated research agenda, offering the SE community a structured foundation for coordinating efforts at this critical juncture.

LLM-based Software Engineering agents face a critical bottleneck: context length limitations cause failures on complex, long-horizon tasks. One promising solution is to encode context as continuous embeddings rather than discrete tokens, enabling denser information storage. We apply the recently proposed In-Context Autoencoder for this purpose. While the method performs well on single-shot common-knowledge and code-understanding tasks, our experiments demonstrate that it fails on multi-step agentic coding tasks. In this paper, we explore this phenomenon and discuss possible factors contributing to this failure.

Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) and agentic systems are moving software engineering from code-centric production toward intent-centric human-agent work in which natural language, repository context, tools, tests, and governance shape delivery. Prior studies examine code generation, AI pair programming, and software engineering agents, but less is known about how public technical discourse and peer-reviewed evidence together frame the profession's near-term transition. This study addresses that gap through a reflexive thematic analysis (RTA) dominant and interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA) informed public-discourse and document analysis. The corpus combines peer-reviewed software engineering and AI literature, technical benchmarks, public talks and interviews, essays, product-facing technical announcements, and X-originated discourse from prominent AI and software engineering voices. Sources were organized through a corpus register, codebook, coding matrix, theme-to-source traceability table, DOI/reference audit, and reproducibility protocol. The analysis shows that GenAI lowers the cost of producing plausible code while increasing the importance of intent specification, context curation, architecture knowledge, verification, security, provenance, governance, and accountable human judgment. The findings indicate that software engineering is becoming less about isolated code authorship and more about supervising, validating, and governing socio-technical systems of humans, agents, tools, and evidence gates. This matters because speed-focused adoption can accumulate hidden technical debt and accountability gaps, whereas bounded autonomy can preserve quality, security, maintainability, and trust.

As generative AI and low-code workflow platforms become routine in software practice, a key educational question is whether the next generation of computer engineers will accept these tools as useful, usable, and worthy of sustained engagement. This paper reports a mixed-methods, cross-sectional study of undergraduate computer engineering students' acceptance of AI automation tooling, instantiated through the open-source platform n8n across three identically scripted workshops in Thailand (n = 103). A 12-item, five-point Likert instrument mapped to six TAM/UTAUT constructs - Performance Expectancy (PE), Effort Expectancy (EE), Behavioral Intention (BI), Self-Efficacy (SE), Hedonic Motivation (HM), and Output Quality (OQ) - was complemented by inductive thematic analysis of open-ended feedback. Analyses combined ordinal reliability estimation, bootstrap confidence intervals, non-parametric tests, multiple-comparison-controlled correlations, polychoric dimensionality diagnostics, a common-method-bias check, and between-session comparisons. Acceptance was favorable across all six constructs with large effect sizes, with PE emerging as the strongest construct and HM as the weakest. Dimensionality diagnostics further revealed that canonical TAM/UTAUT sub-facets collapsed into a single general acceptance factor in this short-form post-workshop context, a finding with important methodological and theoretical implications. Qualitative themes converged with the quantitative profile regarding usefulness and enthusiasm but diverged on output quality, revealing a small yet articulate reliability-skeptical minority. The findings support the curricular adoption of AI automation tooling in undergraduate computing education and identify three theory-grounded instructional levers: instruction-sequencing scaffolds, self-efficacy supports, and trust-calibration interventions.

AI agents are increasingly framed as software-engineering teammates, yet most studies examine them inside human-centered workflows. Little is known about the discourse autonomous AI agents produce when they interact mainly with one another. This paper examines what autonomous agents discuss on MoltBook, how that discourse is organized, and how it differs from human developer discourse. We combine human open coding of a 500-post sample, a concentration-plus-check topic-analysis pipeline over 4,707 English-filtered MoltBook technology posts, and a matched comparison with 5,211 human-generated GitHub Discussions posts. MoltBook technology discourse spans 12 recurring themes, led by Security and Trust (27.4%). At the community level, activity is highly concentrated: the largest submolt accounts for 63.5% of posts (Gini = 0.88), yet a stability-aware BERTopic pipeline still identifies 32 non-outlier sub-topics. Relative to the GitHub Discussions baseline, MoltBook discourse contains fewer concrete, context-rich cues such as code-formatted artifacts, environment details, runtime failures, and reproduction steps. Social mimicry appears only in limited form, while idealization is reflected mainly through lower hedging. Overall, AI-only technical discourse is coherent but selective. It repeatedly returns to security and trust, memory and context management, tooling and APIs, debugging and error handling, workflow automation, and infrastructure/ops, while omitting much of the project-local and runtime detail common in human developer discourse. This may reflect fewer environment-specific failures, reproduction steps, and other grounding cues in MoltBook.

Qualitative analysis plays a pivotal role in understanding the human and social aspects of software engineering. However, it remains a demanding process shaped by the subjective interpretation of individual researchers and sensitive to methodological choices such as prompt design. Recent advancements in Large Language Models (LLMs) offer promising opportunities to support this type of analysis, although their reliability in reproducing human qualitative reasoning under varying prompting conditions remains largely untested. This study presents a controlled empirical evaluation of three LLMs -- Claude Haiku, DeepSeek-Chat, and Gemini 2.5 Flash -- across two prompt engineering strategies (zero-shot and multi-shot closed coding), using Cohen's kappa as the primary agreement metric over ten independent runs per configuration. Results suggest that multi-shot prompting significantly improves agreement for Claude Haiku (Delta kappa = +0.034, Wilcoxon p = 0.004) but not for DeepSeek-Chat or Gemini 2.5 Flash. Intra-model stability varies substantially -- DeepSeek-Chat and Claude Haiku exhibit the lowest variance (SD approx. 0.017), while Gemini 2.5 Flash is the least stable (SD = 0.038). A systematic over-prediction of "Sharing Negative Feedback" is identified across all models (bias ratios up to 5.25x), alongside consistent under-prediction of "Expressing Concerns." Collectively, these findings provide empirical evidence for prompt engineering guidelines in LLM-assisted qualitative coding for software engineering research.

Large language model (LLM)-based coding assistants have made substantial progress, yet most systems remain reactive, requiring developers to explicitly formulate their needs. Proactive coding assistants aim to infer latent developer intent from integrated development environment (IDE) interactions and repository context, thereby reducing interaction overhead and supporting more seamless assistance. However, research in this direction is limited by the scarcity of large-scale real-world developer behavior data. Existing studies therefore often rely on LLM-simulated IDE traces, whose fidelity to real development behavior remains unclear. In this paper, we investigate this simulation-to-reality gap through a large-scale empirical study. We collect real IDE interaction traces from 1{,}246 experienced industry developers over three consecutive days using a custom Visual Studio Code extension, and construct paired LLM-simulated traces for controlled comparison. Our analysis shows that simulated traces differ substantially from real traces in behavioral diversity, temporal structure, and exploratory patterns. Based on the collected data, we introduce \textbf{ProCodeBench}, a real-world benchmark for proactive intent prediction. Experiments with representative LLMs, retrieval-augmented methods, and agentic baselines show that current approaches remain far from reliable under real IDE traces, suggesting that simulation-based evaluation can overestimate real-world performance. Finally, our training study shows that simulated data cannot replace real data, but can complement it when used before real-world fine-tuning. These findings highlight the importance of real developer behavior data for evaluating and training proactive coding assistants.

AI-assisted development tools enable rapid prototyping of services but often lack awareness of architectural constraints, infrastructure dependencies, and organizational standards required in production environments. Consequently, generated artifacts may exhibit brittle behavior and limited deployability. We propose a retrieval-augmented scaffolding approach that combines platform-based code generation with agentic clarification loops to expose and resolve architectural constraint ambiguities. By combining template retrieval with structured interaction, the method embeds production-relevant considerations during service scaffolding. Evaluation indicates improved architectural consistency and deployability compared to general-purpose AI code generation workflows, suggesting that constraint-aware retrieval is essential for aligning AI-assisted service development with production software engineering practices.

AI coding assistants and autonomous agents are becoming integral to software development workflows, reshaping how code is produced, reviewed, and maintained. While recent research has focused mainly on the capabilities and impacts of productivity of these systems, much less attention has been paid to accountability: who is responsible when agents generate, modify, or recommend code? In practice, accountability is defined through the Terms of Service (ToS) and related policy documents that govern the use of AI-powered development tools. In this vision paper, we present a comparative analysis of the Terms of Service for widely used AI coding assistants and agent-enabled development tools. We examine how these documents allocate ownership, responsibility, liability, and disclosure obligations between tool providers and software developers, and we identify common patterns and divergences between providers. Our analysis reveals a consistent tendency to shift responsibility for correctness, safety, and legal compliance onto users, as well as substantial variation in how providers address issues such as indemnification, data reuse, and acceptable use. Based on these findings, we argue that existing policy frameworks are poorly aligned with increasingly agent-mediated and autonomous software development workflows. We outline a research roadmap for accountable agents in software engineering, identifying challenges and opportunities for modeling responsibility, designing governance artifacts, developing tooling that supports accountability, and conducting empirical studies of developers' perceptions and practices.

This paper analyzes the strategic education process aimed at transitioning traditional software development squads into hybrid structures centered on collaborative work between humans and Artificial Intelligence (AI). In a context where human-AI collaboration can significantly increase productivity, this study explores how the upskilling of XPTO professionals, referred to as AI Advocates, acts as a catalyst for cultural and technical transformation. The objective is to present an experience report on the education and enablement process of AI Advocates within a private Brazilian technology company, highlighting key lessons learned and identified challenges.

Frontier software engineering agents have saturated short-horizon benchmarks while regressing on the work that constitutes senior engineering: long-horizon, multi-engineer, ambiguous-specification deliverables. This paper takes a position on what training data is needed to close the gap. The substrate for the next generation of SWE agents is neither larger GitHub scrapes nor more solo-agent trajectories nor -- sufficient by itself -- open human-AI dialogue logs. It is triadic data: synchronized capture of the human-human conversations where engineering context is formed, the human-AI sessions where that context is partially consumed, and the multi-week cross-functional work that surrounds both. We argue that the canonical instantiation of triadic data is two complementary products: long-horizon expert trajectories captured under stimulated-recall protocols, and simulated cross-functional companies -- instrumented teams of senior engineers, product managers, designers, and data scientists working through ambiguous deliverables on shared infrastructure. We further specify a four-tier evidence framework through which any such corpus -- triadic or otherwise -- must justify its quality to a fine-tuning researcher: mechanical verification, statistical corpus characterization, probe experiments, and pre-registered blind evaluation. We argue that this data is capturable in 12-18 months with methods already mature in adjacent fields, that it is the empirical key to four open questions in agent training, and that the field's near-term research agenda should include it explicitly.

Recent advancements in Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated significant potential across a wide range of software engineering tasks, including software design, an area traditionally regarded as highly dependent on human expertise and judgment. However, there has been little research focusing on how LLMs are used in software design, nor on the associated benefits and drawbacks. This paper aims to bridge this gap by empirically investigating how software developers utilize LLMs in the context of software design. We conduct a mixed-methods study, combining a mining study of 291 developer-ChatGPT conversations shared on GitHub with a survey of 65 software practitioners. Our findings reveal nine distinct categories of design tasks supported by ChatGPT, including architecture design, data model design, and the use of design patterns. We further characterize developer-ChatGPT interactions, showing that developers primarily use ChatGPT for knowledge acquisition and design-related code generation, with most tasks situated at the detailed design level. The study identifies seven key benefits of utilizing LLMs in software design as perceived by developers, such as better technology selection and the early detection of design flaws. We also uncover six limitations, including the generation of overly lengthy and difficult-to-read outputs, the creation of inexecutable or incorrect code, and a heavy reliance on context that can lead to hallucinated results. These findings provide an evidence-based characterization of current LLM use in software design from both open-source and practitioner perspectives, highlighting a tension between perceived benefits and limitations, which lays a foundation for future research and the development of effective techniques and tools to integrate LLMs into software design practices.

Since 2022, AI-powered coding assistants have produced contradictory evidence: controlled studies report 20-56% productivity gains on well-scoped tasks, while the most rigorous RCT documents a 19% slowdown for experienced developers, and telemetry across 10,000+ developers shows 98% more pull requests but 91% longer review times with flat delivery metrics. This paper argues these findings constitute the Productivity-Reliability Paradox (PRP): a systematic phenomenon emerging from non-deterministic code generators and insufficient specification discipline. Through a multivocal literature review of 67 sources (2022-2026), this paper: (1) formally defines the PRP with three moderating variables (task abstraction, codebase maturity, developer experience) and two amplifying mechanisms (code review bottleneck, context window constraint); (2) proposes the AI-Augmented Methodology Taxonomy (AAMT), classifying six methodologies under three AI integration tiers; (3) introduces the Specification Governance Model (SGM), grounded in Transaction Cost Economics, with a practical governance decision guide; and (4) evaluates Spec Kit and TDAD as SGM instantiations via a four-month pilot study. Specification discipline, not model capability, is the binding constraint on AI-assisted software dependability.

There has been intense debate among qualitative researchers about whether generative AI is suitable for qualitative research. In this paper, we summarize the broader ongoing discussion of generative AI in qualitative research and its implications for software engineering researchers. The qualitative research approach, small-q (positivist or post-positivist) or Big Q (non-positivist), is among the major criteria for determining whether generative AI can be used in qualitative research. In addition to research philosophy and research approach, skills, ethics, and personal preferences also play a role in researchers' decisions about whether to use AI in qualitative research.

AI coding agents powered by large language models can read codebases and produce functional code, but they routinely violate team-specific product decisions that are invisible in the source code alone. We introduce a controlled benchmark measuring decision compliance, the rate at which an AI coding agent follows established product, design, and engineering decisions, across 8 realistic software engineering tasks containing 41 weighted decision points. We compare a baseline configuration (Claude Code with codebase access only) against an augmented configuration that adds Brief, a product-context retrieval system providing spec generation, mid-build consultation, and retrieval of recorded decisions, persona pain points, customer signals, and competitive intelligence. On identical prompts and the same repository, the augmented configuration achieves 95% decision compliance versus 46% for the baseline, a 49 percentage point improvement. Per-decision analysis reveals that the baseline achieves 100% compliance on decisions visible in the codebase and 0-33% on decisions requiring product context, suggesting that product-context retrieval is a key driver of the improvement. We release the benchmark repository, all 16 pull requests, and scoring harness for independent reproduction.

Software engineering (SE) organizations operate in a knowledge-intensive domain where critical assets -- architectural expertise, design rationale, and system intuition -- are overwhelmingly tacit and volatile. The departure of key contributors or the decay of undocumented decisions can severely impair project velocity and software quality. While conventional SE risk management optimized for schedule and budget is common, the intangible knowledge risks that determine project success remain under-represented. The goal of this research work is to propose and evaluate the Knowledge Lever Risk Management (KLRM) Framework, designed specifically for the software development lifecycle. The primary objectives are to: (1) recast intangible knowledge assets as active mechanisms for risk mitigation (Knowledge Levers); (2) integrate these levers into a structured four-phase architecture (Audit, Alignment, Activation, Assurance); and (3) provide a formal stochastic model to quantify the impact of lever activation on project knowledge capital. We detail the application of these levers through software-specific practices such as pair programming, architectural decision records (ADRs), and LLM-assisted development. Stochastic Monte Carlo simulations demonstrate that full lever activation increases expected knowledge capital by 63.8% and virtually eliminates knowledge crisis probability. Our research shows that knowledge lever activation improves alignment across the project management iron triangle (scope, time, cost) by reducing rework and rediscovery costs.

The capabilities of AI-assisted coding are progressing at breakneck speed. Chat-based vibe coding has evolved into fully fledged AI-assisted, agentic software development using agent scaffolds where the human developer creates a plan that agentic AIs implement. One current trend is utilizing documents beyond this plan document, such as project and method-scoped documents. Here we propose GROUNDING$.$md, a community-governed, field-scoped epistemic grounding document, using mass spectrometry-based proteomics as an example. This explicit field-scoped grounding document encodes Hard Constraints (non-negotiable validity invariants empirically required for scientific correctness) and Convention Parameters (community-agreed defaults) that override all other contexts to enforce validity, regardless of what the user prompts. In practice, this will empower a non-domain expert to generate code, tools, and software that have best practices baked in at the ground level, providing confidence to the software developer but also to those reviewing or using the final product. Undoubtedly it is easier to have agentic AIs adhere to guidelines than humans, and this opportunity allows for organizations to develop epistemic grounding documents in such a way as to keep domain experts in the loop in a future of democratized generation of bespoke software solutions.

This work presents a multi-layered methodology for efficiently accelerating multimodal foundation models (MFMs). It combines hardware and software co-design of transformer blocks with an optimization pipeline that reduces computational and memory requirements. During model development, it employs performance enhancements through fine-tuning for domain-specific adaptation. Our methodology further incorporates hardware and software techniques for optimizing MFMs. Specifically, it employs MFM compression using hierarchy-aware mixed-precision quantization and structural pruning for transformer blocks and MLP channels. It also optimizes operations through speculative decoding, model cascading that routes queries through a small-to-large cascade and uses lightweight self-tests to determine when to escalate to larger models, as well as co-optimization of sequence length, visual resolution & stride, and graph-level operator fusion. To efficiently execute the model, the processing dataflow is optimized based on the underlying hardware architecture together with memory-efficient attention to meet on-chip bandwidth and latency budgets. To support this, a specialized hardware accelerator for the transformer workloads is employed, which can be developed through expert design or an LLM-aided design approach. We demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed methodology on medical-MFMs and on code generation tasks, and conclude with extensions toward energy-efficient spiking-MFMs.

Generative AI (GenAI) is reshaping software engineering by shifting development from manual coding toward agent-driven implementation. While vibe coding promises rapid prototyping, it often suffers from architectural drift, limited traceability, and reduced maintainability. Applying the design science research (DSR) methodology, this paper proposes Shift-Up, a framework that reinterprets established software engineering practices, like executable requirements (BDD), architectural modeling (C4), and architecture decision records (ADRs), as structural guardrails for GenAI-native development. Preliminary findings from our exploratory evaluation compare unstructured vibe coding, structured prompt engineering, and the Shift-Up approach in the development of a web application. These findings indicate that embedding machine-readable requirements and architectural artifacts stabilizes agent behavior, reduces implementation drift, and shifts human effort toward higher-level design and validation activities. The results suggest that traditional software engineering artifacts can serve as effective control mechanisms in AI-assisted development.

Large Language Models are increasingly used as judges to evaluate code artifacts when exhaustive human review or executable test coverage is unavailable. LLM-judge is increasingly relevant in agentic software engineering workflows, where it can help rank candidate solutions and guide patch selection. While attractive for scale, current practice lacks a principled account of reliability and bias: repeated evaluations of the same case can disagree; small prompt edits can swing outcomes; and seemingly semantics-preserving, human-equivalent perturbations may elicit divergent verdicts. This paper studies LLM-as-a-Judge for code through a measurement-first lens. We analyze two pointwise judging regimes across code generation, code repair task, and test generation, and we systematically probe prompt-induced biases. Our study considers difficulty levels for repeated runs and controlled prompt interventions that isolate one presentation cue at a time, and it evaluates judges using consistency and sensitivity to bias. We find that judge decisions are highly sensitive to prompt biases even when the underlying code snippet is unchanged. Across all three tasks, several biases systematically shift preferences toward the option favored by the prompt, improving accuracy when that option aligns with the gold answer but substantially reducing it otherwise. In some settings, these effects are large enough to change task-level conclusions and alter relative model rankings. These findings show that reported judge performance may reflect prompt artifacts rather than stable assessment ability, posing a direct threat to the validity and reproducibility of code evaluation. We therefore argue that LLM-as-a-Judge studies should report bias sensitivity alongside accuracy and incorporate explicit controls to support more trustworthy model comparison in software engineering.

Prompt-induced cognitive biases are changes in a general-purpose AI (GPAI) system's decisions caused solely by biased wording in the input (e.g., framing, anchors), not task logic. In software engineering (SE) decision support (where problem statements and requirements are natural language) small phrasing shifts (e.g., popularity hints or outcome reveals) can push GPAI models toward suboptimal decisions. We study this with PROBE-SWE, a dynamic benchmark for SE that pairs biased and unbiased versions of the same SE dilemmas, controls for logic and difficulty, and targets eight SE-relevant biases (anchoring, availability, bandwagon, confirmation, framing, hindsight, hyperbolic discounting, overconfidence). We ask whether prompt engineering mitigates bias sensitivity in practice, focusing on actionable techniques that practitioners can apply off-the-shelf in real environments. Testing common strategies (e.g., chain-of-thought, self-debiasing) on cost-effective GPAI systems, we find no statistically significant reductions in bias sensitivity on a per-bias basis. We then adopt a Prolog-style view of the reasoning process: solving SE dilemmas requires making explicit any background axioms and inference assumptions (i.e., SE best practices) that are usually implicit in the prompt. So, we hypothesize that bias-inducing features short-circuit assumption elicitation, pushing GPAI models toward biased shortcuts. Building on this, we introduce an end-to-end method that elicits best practices and injects axiomatic reasoning cues into the prompt before answering, reducing overall bias sensitivity by 51% on average (p < .001). Finally, we report a thematic analysis that surfaces linguistic patterns associated with heightened bias sensitivity, clarifying when GPAI use is less advisable for SE decision support and where to focus future countermeasures.

AI-based systems, currently driven largely by LLMs and tool-using agentic harnesses, are increasingly discussed as a possible threat to software engineering. Foundation models get stronger, agents can plan and act across multiple steps, and tasks such as scaffolding, routine test generation, straightforward bug fixing, and small integration work look more exposed than they did only a few years ago. The result is visible unease not only among students and junior developers, but also among experienced practitioners who worry that hard-won expertise may lose value. This paper argues for a different reading. The important shift is not that software engineering loses relevance. It is that the thing being engineered expands beyond executable code to semi-executable artifacts; combinations of natural language, tools, workflows, control mechanisms, and organizational routines whose enactment depends on human or probabilistic interpretation rather than deterministic execution. The Semi-Executable Stack is introduced as a six-ring diagnostic reference model for reasoning about that expansion, spanning executable artifacts, instructional artifacts, orchestrated execution, controls, operating logic, and societal and institutional fit. The model helps locate where a contribution, bottleneck, or organizational transition primarily sits, and which adjacent rings it depends on. The paper develops the argument through three worked cases, reframes familiar objections as engineering targets rather than reasons to dismiss the transition, and closes with a preserve-versus-purify heuristic for deciding which legacy software engineering processes, controls, and coordination routines should be kept and which should be simplified or redesigned. This paper is a conceptual keynote companion: diagnostic and agenda-setting rather than empirical.

Humans often specify tasks incompletely, so assistants must know when and how to ask clarifying questions. However, effective clarification remains challenging in software engineering tasks as not all missing information is equally valuable, and questions must target information users can realistically provide. We study clarification in real software engineering tasks by quantifying which types of information most affect task success and which questions elicit useful responses from simulated users. Using Shapley attribution and distributional comparisons, we identify two key properties of effective clarification: task relevance (which information predicts success) and user answerability (what users can realistically provide). We operationalize these properties as multi-stage reinforcement learning rewards to train CLARITI, an 8B-parameter clarification module, that matches GPT-5's resolution rate on underspecified issues while generating 41% fewer questions. Our results suggest that grounding reward design in empirical analysis of information impact and user answerability improves clarification efficiency.

Software documentation is essential for program comprehension, developer onboarding, code review, and long-term maintenance. Yet producing quality documentation manually is time-consuming and frequently yields incomplete or inconsistent results. Large language models (LLMs) offer a promising solution by automatically generating natural language descriptions from source code, helping developers understand code more efficiently, facilitating maintenance, and supporting downstream activities such as defect localization and commit message generation. However, the effectiveness of LLMs in documentation tasks critically depends on how they are prompted. Properly structured instructions can substantially improve model performance, making prompt engineering-the design of input prompts to guide model behavior-a foundational technique in LLM-based software engineering. Approaches such as few-shot prompting, chain-of-thought reasoning, retrieval-augmented generation, and zero-shot learning show promise for code summarization, yet current research remains fragmented. There is limited understanding of which prompting strategies work best, for which models, and under what conditions. Moreover, evaluation practices vary widely, with most studies relying on overlap-based metrics that may not capture semantic quality. This systematic literature review consolidates existing evidence, categorizes prompting paradigms, examines their effectiveness, and identifies gaps to guide future research and practical adoption.

AI agents have become increasingly capable at isolated software engineering (SWE) tasks such as resolving issues on Github. Yet long-horizon tasks involving multiple interdependent subtasks still pose challenges both with respect to accuracy, and with respect to timely completion. A natural approach to solving these long-horizon tasks in a timely manner is asynchronous multi-agent collaboration, where multiple agents work on different parts of the task at the same time. But effective application of multi-agent systems has proven surprisingly difficult: concurrent edits by multiple agents interfere with each other, dependencies are difficult to synchronize, and combining partial progress into a coherent whole is challenging. On the other hand, human developers have long relied on mature collaboration infrastructure to manage these challenges in large software projects. Inspired by these collaboration primitives, we introduce Centralized Asynchronous Isolated Delegation (CAID), a structured multi-agent coordination paradigm grounded in three core SWE primitives: centralized task delegation, asynchronous execution, and isolated workspaces. CAID constructs dependency-aware task plans through a central manager, executes subtasks concurrently in isolated workspaces, and consolidates progress via structured integration with executable test-based verification. In empirical evaluation, we find that CAID improves accuracy over single-agent baselines by 25.6% absolute on paper reproduction tasks (PaperBench) and 14.7% on Python library development tasks (Commit0). Through systematic analysis, we find that branch-and-merge is a central coordination mechanism for multi-agent collaboration, and that SWE primitives such as git worktree, git commit, and git merge enable it to be realized in a reliable and executable manner.

Agentic Software Engineering (SE 3.0) represents a new era where intelligent agents are tasked not with simple code generation, but with achieving complex, goal-oriented SE objectives. To harness these new capabilities while ensuring trustworthiness, we must recognize a fundamental duality within the SE field in the Agentic SE era, comprising two symbiotic modalities: SE for Humans and SE for Agents. This duality demands a radical reimagining of the foundational pillars of SE (actors, processes, tools, and artifacts) which manifest differently across each modality. We propose two purpose-built workbenches to support this vision. The Agent Command Environment (ACE) serves as a command center where humans orchestrate and mentor agent teams, handling outputs such as Merge-Readiness Packs (MRPs) and Consultation Request Packs (CRPs). The Agent Execution Environment (AEE) is a digital workspace where agents perform tasks while invoking human expertise when facing ambiguity or complex trade-offs. This bi-directional partnership, which supports agent-initiated human callbacks and handovers, gives rise to new, structured engineering activities (i.e., processes) that redefine human-AI collaboration, elevating the practice from agentic coding to true agentic software engineering. This paper presents the Structured Agentic Software Engineering (SASE) vision, outlining several of the foundational pillars for the future of SE. The paper culminates in a research roadmap that identifies a few key challenges and opportunities while briefly discussing the resulting impact of this future on SE education. Our goal is not to offer a definitive solution, but to provide a conceptual scaffold with structured vocabulary to catalyze a community-wide dialogue, pushing the SE community to think beyond its classic, human-centric tenets toward a disciplined, scalable, and trustworthy agentic future.

The application of Large Language Models (LLMs) is growing in the productive completion of Software Engineering tasks. Yet, studies investigating productive prompting techniques often employed a limited problem space, focusing primarily on well-known prompting patterns and targeting function-level SE practices. We identify significant gaps in real-world workflows that involve complexities beyond class-level (e.g., multi-class dependencies) and different features that can impact Human-LLM Interaction (HLI) processes in code generation. To address these issues, we designed an experiment to comprehensively analyze HLI features related to code generation productivity. Our study presents two project-level benchmark tasks that extend beyond function-level evaluations. We conducted a user study with 36 participants from diverse backgrounds, asking them to solve the assigned tasks by interacting with the GPT assistant using specific prompting patterns. We also examined participants' experiences and behavioral features during interactions by analyzing screen recordings and GPT chat logs. Our empirical investigation, based on statistical guidance, revealed (1) that three out of 15 HLI features emerged as consistently supported factors for productivity; (2) five primary guidelines for enhancing productivity for HLI processes; and (3) a taxonomy of 29 runtime and logic errors that can occur during HLI processes, along with suggested mitigation plans.

The rise of large language models (LLMs) has led to dramatic improvements across a wide range of natural language tasks. Their performance on certain tasks can be further enhanced by incorporating test-time reasoning techniques. These inference-time advances have been adopted into the code domain, enabling complex software engineering (SWE) tasks such as code generation, test generation and issue resolution. However, the impact of different reasoning techniques on code-centric SWE tasks has not been systematically explored. In this work, we survey code reasoning techniques that underpin these capabilities, with a focus on test-time compute and inference-time reasoning paradigms. We examine a variety of code-specific reasoning methods and progressively build up to SWE agents, which combine planning, tool use, and multi-step interaction. We also compare the impact of different techniques on coding tasks, highlighting their relative importance and outlining open challenges and future research directions. Across commonly used models and benchmarks, we find that approaches exploiting code-specific signals (e.g., structure and execution feedback) are frequently associated with improved performance, motivating a dedicated study of code reasoning beyond natural-language reasoning.

Context: Machine Learning (ML) significantly impacts Software Engineering (SE), but studies mainly focus on practitioners, neglecting researchers. This overlooks practices and challenges in teaching, researching, or reviewing ML applications in SE. Objective: This study aims to contribute to the knowledge, about the synergy between ML and SE from the perspective of SE researchers, by providing insights into the practices followed when researching, teaching, and reviewing SE studies that apply ML. Method: We analyzed SE researchers familiar with ML or who authored SE articles using ML, along with the articles themselves. We examined practices, SE tasks addressed with ML, challenges faced, and reviewers' and educators' perspectives using grounded theory coding and qualitative analysis. Results: We found diverse practices focusing on data collection, model training, and evaluation. Some recommended practices (e.g., hyperparameter tuning) appeared in less than 20% of literature. Common challenges involve data handling, model evaluation (incl. non-functional properties), and involving human expertise in evaluation. Hands-on activities are common in education, though traditional methods persist. Conclusion: Despite accepted practices in applying ML to SE, significant gaps remain. By enhancing guidelines, adopting diverse teaching methods, and emphasizing underrepresented practices, the SE community can bridge these gaps and advance the field.

As long-horizon coding agents produce more code than any developer can review, oversight collapses onto a single surface: the automated test suite. Reward hacking naturally arises in this setup, as the agent optimizes for passing tests while deviating from the users true goal. We study this reward hacking phenomenon by decompose software engineering tasks into three parts: (i) a natural language description of the specification (ii) visible validation tests that exercise specified features in isolation, and (iii) held-out tests that compose those same features to simulate real-world usage. Based on the specification and the visible validation test suites, a genuine agent would be able to generate a solution that can also pass all of the held-out tests. Therefore we use the gap in pass rates on these two suites to quantify reward hacking. Based on this methodology, we introduce SpecBench, a benchmark comprising 30 systems-level programming tasks ranging from short horizon tasks like building a JSON parser to ultra long horizon tasks like building an entire OS kernel from scratch. Large-scale experiments reveal a consistent pattern: while every frontier agent saturates the visible suite, reward hacking persists, with smaller models exhibiting larger gaps on holdout suites. The gap also scales sharply with task length: it grows by 28 percentage points for every tenfold increase in code size. Failures range from subtle feature isolation to deliberate exploits, including a 2,900-line hash-table "compiler" that memorizes test inputs. SpecBench offers a principled testbed for measuring whether coding agents build genuine working systems or merely game the test suites developers hand them.