Software Engineering

Deciding how to distribute work between humans and AI systems is a central challenge in organisational design. Most approaches treat this as a binary choice, yet the operational reality is richer: humans and AI routinely share tasks or take complementary roles depending on context, fatigue, and the stakes involved. Governing that distribution -- balancing efficiency, oversight, and human capability -- remains an open problem. This paper presents Human-AI Adaptive Symbiosis (HAAS), an implemented framework for adaptive task allocation in software engineering and manufacturing. HAAS combines two coupled components: a rule-based expert system that enforces governance constraints before any learning occurs, and a contextual-bandit learner that selects among feasible collaboration modes from outcome feedback. Task-agent fit is represented through five auditable cognitive dimensions and a five-mode autonomy spectrum -- from human-only to fully autonomous -- embedded in a reproducible benchmark spanning both domains. Three empirical findings emerge. First, governance is not a binary switch but a tunable design variable: tighter constraints predictably convert autonomous AI assignments into supervised collaborations, with domain-specific costs and benefits. Second, in manufacturing, stronger governance can improve operational performance and reduce fatigue simultaneously -- a workload-buffering effect that contradicts the usual framing of governance as pure overhead. Third, no single governance setting dominates across all contexts; moderate governance becomes increasingly competitive as the learner accumulates experience within the governed action space. Together, these findings position HAAS as a pre-deployment workbench for comparing and inspecting human--AI allocation policies before organisational commitment.

The promise of Large Language Models in automated software engineering is often measured by functional correctness, overlooking the critical issue of long term maintainability. This paper presents a systematic audit of technical debt in AI-generated software, revealing that AI does not eliminate flaws but rather introduces a distinct machine signature of defects. Our multi-scale analysis, spanning single-file algorithmic tasks and complex, agent generated systems, identifies a fundamental Reasoning-Complexity Trade-off: as models become more capable, they generate increasingly bloated and coupled code. This architectural decay is so pronounced that we establish a Volume-Quality Inverse Law, where code volume is a near perfect predictor of structural degradation. Crucially, we demonstrate that neither functional correctness nor detailed prompting mitigates this decay. These findings challenge the current paradigm of prompt-driven generation, reframing the central problem of AI-based software engineering from one of code generation to one of architectural complexity management. We conclude that future progress depends on equipping agents with explicit architectural foresight to ensure the software they build is not just functional, but also maintainable.

Software engineering increasingly involves making high-stakes decisions under uncertainty, using signals from code, field data, and socio-technical processes. Recent AI-driven support (e.g., anomaly detection, predictive analytics, AIOps, as well as LLM-based agents) has amplified engineers' ability to detect patterns and synthesize content and recommendations, but many critical questions are interventional or counterfactual: What is the expected impact of changing a load-balancing strategy? Would an outage have been avoided under a different release plan? Correlational models answer "what tends to co-occur"; they struggle to answer "what would happen if we act." We propose Causal Software Engineering (CSE) as a future paradigm in which causal models and causal reasoning systematically inform activities across the software lifecycle, augmenting existing practices with explicit assumptions, uncertainty-aware effect estimates, and counterfactual diagnosis. We outline (i) a causal-first workflow view spanning development and operations, (ii) a staged roadmap for tools and organizational adoption, and (iii) an evaluation and benchmark agenda for measuring progress.

Software documentation frequently drifts from executable logic as codebases evolve, creating technical debt that degrades maintainability and causes downstream API misuse. While static analysis tools can detect the absence of documentation, they cannot evaluate its semantic consistency. Conversely, standard Large Language Models (LLMs) offer generative flexibility but frequently hallucinate when updating documentation without deep structural awareness of the underlying code. To address this gap, we propose DocSync, an agentic workflow that frames documentation maintenance as a structurally grounded, iterative generation task. DocSync bridges syntactic changes and natural language descriptions by fusing Abstract Syntax Tree (AST) representations and Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) to provide dependency-aware context. Furthermore, to ensure factual consistency, we incorporate a critic-guided refinement loop based on the Reflexion paradigm, allowing the model to self-correct candidate updates against the source code. We empirically evaluate a resource-constrained implementation of DocSync-using a LoRA-adapted small language model - on a proxy code-to-text maintenance task. Our findings demonstrate that this AST-aware agentic approach substantially outperforms standard encoder-decoder baselines across semantic alignment, summary-line faithfulness, and automated judge preferences (e.g., achieving an automated judge score of 3.44/5.0 compared to 1.91 for CodeT5-base). Crucially, the iterative critic loop yields measurable improvements in semantic correctness without requiring scaled-up parameter counts. These results provide strong evidence that coupling structural retrieval with agentic refinement is a highly promising direction for autonomously mitigating documentation debt.

Conventional commits provide a structured format for writing commit messages, which improves readability, software maintenance, and enables automation tools such as changelog generators and semantic versioning systems. Existing approaches to conventional commit classification typically rely on ML/DL models trained on large labeled datasets. In this paper, we investigated a training-free alternative by leveraging large language models (LLMs) through prompt engineering. Rather than building a task-specific classifier, we evaluate three prompting strategies, such as zero-shot, few-shot, and chain-of-thought, across three open-source LLMs of varying scale: Mistral-7B-Instruct, LLaMA-3-8B, and DeepSeek-R1-32B. Classification is performed directly on code diffs extracted from a balanced dataset of 3,200 commits mined from the InfluxDB repository, without any model fine-tuning. Our results show that few-shot prompting consistently achieves the highest accuracy, while chain-of-thought prompting does not yield additional gains for this classification task. Among the evaluated models, DeepSeek-R1-32B achieves the strongest overall performance, suggesting that model scale plays a meaningful role in conventional commit classification. These findings provide practical guidance for researchers and practitioners seeking to automate commit classification without the overhead of curating and maintaining labeled training data.

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.

Transformers now underpin critical AI systems across industry and research. Yet their faults can silently alter model behavior without runtime errors, and existing techniques offer little support for tracing these failures to their component and root cause. Such faults evade detection because loss and numerical values stay normal, and the visible symptom rarely identifies the component responsible. We present DEFault++, a hierarchical learning-based technique that first detects a fault, then identifies the affected component, and finally the cause within it, helping developers effectively debug transformer models. DEFault++ organizes component-level runtime measurements with a Fault Propagation Graph (FPG), a structural prior over the architecture's dependency paths, and reports the evidence behind each diagnosis. To train and evaluate it, we construct DEFault-bench, a benchmark of 5,556 labeled runs from mutation testing across seven models, nine tasks, and both encoder and decoder architectures. DEFault++ improves fault detection over four prior techniques, reaching an F1 of 0.826--0.909, and in a developer study with 21 participants, it raises repair accuracy from 57.1% to 83.3%. These results show that transformer fault diagnosis benefits from component-level measurements and architecture-aware reasoning rather than model-level behavior alone, and DEFault-bench provides a foundation for further research on transformer fault diagnosis.

Large language models can now generate substantial code and draft research text, but research-software projects require more than either artifact alone. The mathematical thesis, executable system, benchmark surface, and public claims must mature together, yet often drift apart. We identify two LM-specific failure modes: hallucination accumulation, in which claims exceed what code or theory supports and unsupported assertions propagate across sessions; and desynchronization, in which code, theory, or the model's own world model fall out of alignment. We propose Comet-H, an iterative prompt automaton that orchestrates ideation, implementation, evaluation, grounding, and paper-writing as coupled coordinates of a single workspace state. At each step, a controller selects the next prompt by scoring it against what the workspace currently lacks, carries unfinished follow-up work forward with a half-life, and re-checks the paper and README against the code and benchmarks whenever documentation changes. We frame prompt selection as a small contextual bandit problem over prompt families, with prompts as arms, workspace deficits as context, and a hand-weighted linear score. This transparent scorer, paired with a fading record of unfinished work, bounds long-horizon follow-ups, requires no learned policy, and makes each prompt choice legible from the workspace. We created a portfolio of 46 research-software repositories across two dozen domains. We study A3 in depth, a Python static-analysis tool built entirely within the loop, which reaches (F1 = 0.768) on a 90-case benchmark, compared with a next-best baseline of 0.364. Across approximately 400 commits, we find that audit-and-contraction passes dominate the later phases of every successful trajectory.

Context: Study screening in systematic literature reviews is costly, inconsistency-prone, and risk-asymmetric, since false negatives can compromise validity. Despite rapid uptake of Large Language Models (LLMs), there is limited evidence on how such models behave during the study screening phase, particularly regarding the choice of specific LLMs and their comparison with classical models. Objective: To assess LLM performance and variability in screening, quantify the impact of input metadata (abstract, title, keywords), and compare LLMs with classical classifiers under a shared protocol. Methods: We analyzed 12 LLMs from 4 providers (OpenAI, Google Gemini, Anthropic, Llama) and 4 classical models (Logistic Regression, Support Vector Classification, Random Forest, and Naive Bayes) on 2 real Systematic Literature Reviews (SLRs), totaling 518 papers. The experimental design investigated 3 critical dimensions: (i) LLMs performance variability, (ii) the impact of input feature composition (abstract, title, and keywords) on LLM performance, and (iii) the real gain of using LLMs instead of more traditional classification models. Results: LLMs exhibited substantial heterogeneity and residual non-determinism even at temperature zero. Abstract availability was decisive: removing it consistently degraded performance, while adding title and/or keywords to the abstract yielded no robust gains. Compared to classical models, performance differences were not consistent enough to support generalizable LLM superiority. Discussion: LLM adoption should be justified by operational and governance constraints (reproducibility, cost, metadata availability), supported by pilot validation and explicit reporting of variability and input configuration.

Bug tracking systems play a crucial role in software maintenance, yet developers frequently struggle with low-quality user-submitted reports that omit essential details such as Steps to Reproduce (S2R), Observed Behavior (OB), and Expected Behavior (EB). We propose ImproBR, an LLM-based pipeline that automatically detects and improves bug reports by addressing missing, incomplete, and ambiguous S2R, OB, and EB sections. ImproBR employs a hybrid detector combining fine-tuned DistilBERT, heuristic analysis, and an LLM analyzer, guided by GPT-4o mini with section-specific few-shot prompts and a Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) pipeline grounded in Minecraft Wiki domain knowledge. Evaluated on Mojira, ImproBR improved structural completeness from 7.9% to 96.4%, more than doubled the proportion of executable S2R from 28.8% to 67.6%, and raised fully reproducible bug reports from 1 to 13 across 139 challenging real-world reports.

The accelerating adoption of Large Language Models (LLMs) in software engineering (SE) has brought with it a silent crisis: unsustainable computational cost. While these models demonstrate remarkable capabilities in different SE tasks, they are unmanageably large, slow to deploy, memory-intensive, and carbon-heavy. This reality threatens not only the scalability and accessibility of AI-powered SE, but also its long-term environmental sustainability. The research challenge is clear: we must go beyond accuracy and address efficiency and environmental cost as first-class design constraints. To meet this challenge, we introduce Carbon-Taxed Transformers (CTT), a systematic multi-architectural compression principled pipeline ordering inspired by economic carbon taxation principles. Drawing from the economic concept of carbon pricing, CTT operationalizes a computational carbon tax that penalizes architectural inefficiencies and rewards deployment-ready compression. We evaluate CTT across three core SE tasks: code clone detection, code summarization, and code generation, with models spanning encoder-only, encoder-decoder, and decoder-only architecture. Our results show that CTT delivers on inference: (1) up to 49x memory reduction, (2) time reduction up to 8-10x for clone detection, up to 3x for summarization, and 4-7x for generation, (3) up to 81% reduction in CO2 emissions and (4) CTT retains around 98% accuracy on clone detection, around 89% on summarization, and up to 91% (textual metrics) and 68% (pass@1) for generation. Two ablation studies show that pipeline ordering and individual component contributions are both essential, providing empirical justification for CTT's design and effectiveness. This work establishes a viable path toward responsible AI in SE through aggressive yet performance-preserving compression.

Software quality assurance remains a major challenge in industrial environments, where large-scale and long-lived systems inevitably accumulate defects. Identifying the location of a fault is often time-consuming and costly, particularly during maintenance phases when developers must rely primarily on textual bug reports rather than complete runtime or code-level context. In this study, we investigated if artificial intelligence can support fault localization using only the natural-language content of bug reports. By relying only on textual information, our approach requires no access to source code, execution traces, or static analysis artifacts, making it directly deployable within existing industrial maintenance workflows. We framed fault localization as a supervised text classification problem and evaluated three traditional machine learning models (Logistic Regression, Support Vector Machine, and Random Forest) and two fine-tuned transformer-based language models (RoBERTa-Base and Distil-RoBERTa). Our evaluation used proprietary data from ABB Robotics in Sweden, comprising five years of resolved industrial bug reports, each linked to its verified code fix. This setting allowed us to assess model effectiveness under realistic industrial constraints. Our results showed that traditional models using term frequency-inverse document features consistently outperformed the fine-tuned language models on this dataset, while data augmentation improved Random Forest performance. These findings challenge the assumption that transformer-based models universally outperform classical approaches in industrial contexts with domain-specific data. We demonstrated that historical bug reports can be systematically used for text-based, artificial intelligence-assisted fault localization, providing a scalable, low-cost, and empirically grounded complement to common debugging practices in industry.

Software documentation frequently becomes outdated or fails to exist entirely, yet developers need focused views of their codebase to understand complex systems. While automated reverse engineering tools can generate UML diagrams from code, they produce overwhelming detail without considering developer intent. We introduce query-driven UML diagram generation, where LLMs create diagrams that directly answer natural language questions about code. Unlike existing methods, our approach produces semantically focused diagrams containing only relevant elements with contextual descriptions. We fine-tune Qwen2.5-Coder-14B on a curated dataset of code files, developer queries, and corresponding diagram representations in a structured JSON format, evaluating with both automatic detection of structural defects and human assessment of semantic relevance. Results demonstrate that fine-tuning on a modest amount of manually corrected data yields dramatic improvements: our best model achieves the highest F1 scores while reducing defect rates below state-of-the-art LLMs, generating diagrams that are both structurally sound and semantically faithful to developer queries. Thus, we establish the feasibility of using LLMs for scalable contextual, on-demand documentation generation. We make our code and dataset publicly available at https://github.com/i-need-a-pencil/query2diagram.

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.

We study whether Large Language Models (LLMs) can perform feature model analysis operations (AOs) directly on semi-formal textual blueprints, i.e., concise constrained-language descriptions of feature hierarchies and constraints, enabling early validation in Software Product Line scoping. Using 12 state-of-the-art LLMs and 16 standard AOs, we compare their outputs against the solver-based oracle FLAMA. Results show that reasoning-optimized models (e.g., Grok 4 Fast Reasoning, Gemini 2.5 Pro) achieve 88-89% average accuracy across all evaluated blueprints and operations, approaching solver correctness. We identify systematic errors in structural parsing and constraint reasoning, and highlight accuracy-cost trade-offs that inform model selection. These findings position LLMs as lightweight assistants for early variability validation.

Software engineering faces a fundamental challenge: multi-agent AI systems fail in ways that defy explanation by traditional theories. While individual agents perform correctly, their interactions degrade entire ecosystems, revealing a gap in our understanding of software evolution. This paper argues that AI-native software ecosystems must be studied as complex adaptive systems (CAS), where emergent properties like architectural entropy, cascade failures, and comprehension debt arise not from individual components, but from their interactions. We map Holland's six CAS properties onto observable ecosystem dynamics, distinguishing these systems from microservices or open-source networks. To measure causal emergence, we define micro-level state variables, coarse-graining functions, and a tractable measurement framework. Seven falsifiable propositions link CAS theory to software evolution, challenging or extending Lehman's laws where agent-level assumptions fail. If confirmed, these findings would demand a radical shift: ecosystem-level monitoring as the primary governance mechanism for AI-native systems. If refuted, existing theories may only need incremental updates. Either way, this work forces us to ask: Can software engineering's core assumptions survive the age of autonomous agents?

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.

Recent advances in artificial intelligence (AI) have shown promise in automating key aspects of Agile project management, yet their impact on team cognition remains underexplored. In this work, we investigate cognitive offloading in Agile sprint planning by conducting a controlled, three-condition experiment comparing AI-only, human-only, and hybrid planning models on a live client deliverable at a mid-sized digital agency. Using quantitative metrics -- including estimation accuracy, rework rates, and scope change recovery time -- alongside qualitative indicators of planning robustness, we evaluate each model's effectiveness beyond raw efficiency. We find that while AI-only planning minimizes time and cost, it significantly degrades risk capture rates and increases rework due to unstated assumptions, whereas human-only planning excels at adaptability but incurs substantial overhead. Drawing on these findings, we propose a theoretical framework for hybrid AI-human sprint planning that assigns algorithmic tools to estimation and backlog formatting while mandating human deliberation for risk assessment and ambiguity resolution. Our results challenge the assumption that efficiency equates to effectiveness, offering actionable governance strategies for organizations seeking to augment rather than erode team cognition.

Digital nudging systems lack architectural guidance for translating behavioral science into software design. While research identifies nudge strategies and quality attributes, existing architectures fail to integrate multi-dimensional user modeling with ethical compliance as architectural concerns. We present an architecture that uses behavioral theory through explicit architectural decisions, treating ethics and fairness as structural guardrails rather than implementation details. A literature review synthesized 68 nudging strategies, 11 quality attributes, and 3 user profiling dimensions into architectural requirements. The architecture implements sequential processing layers with cross-cutting evaluation modules enforcing regulatory compliance. Validation with 13 software architects confirmed requirements satisfaction and domain transferability. An LLM-powered proof-of-concept in residential energy sustainability demonstrated feasibility through evaluation with 15 users, achieving high perceived intervention quality and measurable positive emotional impact. This work bridges behavioral science and software architecture by providing reusable patterns for adaptive systems that balance effectiveness with ethical constraints.

There is a pressing need for better development methods and tools to keep up with the growing demand and increasing complexity of new software systems. New types of user interfaces, the need for intelligent components, sustainability concerns, etc. bring new challenges that we need to handle. In the last years, model-driven engineering (MDE), including its latest incarnation, i.e. low/no-code development, has been key to improving the quality and productivity of software development, but models themselves are becoming increasingly complex to specify and manage. At the same time, we are witnessing the growing popularity of vibe coding approaches that rely on Large Language Models (LLMs) to transform natural language descriptions into running code at the expense of potential code vulnerabilities, scalability issues and maintainability concerns. While many may think vibe coding will replace model-based engineering, in this paper we argue that, in fact, the two approaches can complement each other and provide altogether different development paths for different types of software systems, development scenarios, and user profiles. In this sense, we introduce the concept of vibe-driven model-based engineering as a novel approach to integrate the best of both worlds (AI and MDE) to accelerate the development of reliable complex systems. We outline the key concepts of this new approach and highlight the opportunities and open challenges it presents for the future of software development.

Agentic code tasks such as fault localization and patch generation require processing long codebases under tight memory constraints, where the Key-Value (KV) cache becomes the primary inference bottleneck. Existing compression methods rely exclusively on attention signals to estimate token importance, systematically discarding structurally critical tokens such as call sites, branch conditions, and assignments that are essential for code understanding. We present CodeComp, a training-free KV cache compression framework that incorporates static program analysis into LLM inference via Code Property Graph priors extracted by Joern. Across bug localization and code generation benchmarks, CodeComp consistently outperforms attention-only compression baselines under equal memory budgets, recovering the majority of full-context accuracy under aggressive KV cache compression, while matching the patch generation quality of uncompressed full-context inference and integrating seamlessly into SGLang-based agentic coding pipelines without model modification.

Deep Neural Networks (DNNs) are widely used by engineers to solve difficult problems that require predictive modeling from data. However, these models are often massive, with millions or billions of parameters, and require substantial computational power, RAM, and storage. This becomes a limitation in practical scenarios where strict size and resource constraints must be respected. In this paper, we present a novel concept-based pruning technique for DNNs that guides pruning decisions using human-interpretable concepts, such as features, colors, and classes. This is particularly important in a software engineering context, as DNNs are integrated into systems and must be pruned according to specific system requirements. Our concept-based pruning solution analyzes neuron activations to identify important neurons from a system requirements viewpoint and uses this information to guide the DNN pruning. We assess our solution using the VGG-19 network and a dataset of 26'384 RGB images, focusing on its ability to produce small, effective pruned DNNs and on the computational complexity and performance of these pruned DNNs. We also analyzed the pruning efficiency of our solution and compared alternative configurations. Our results show that concept-based pruning efficiently generates much smaller, effective pruned DNNs. Pruning greatly improves the computational efficiency and performance of DNNs, properties that are particularly useful for practical applications with stringent memory and computational time constraints. Finally, alternative configuration options enable engineers to identify trade-offs adapted to different practical situations.

AI coding agents spend a substantial fraction of their tool calls on undirected codebase exploration. We investigate whether providing agents with formal architecture descriptors can reduce this navigational overhead. We present three complementary studies. First, a controlled experiment (24 code localization tasks x 4 conditions, Claude Sonnet 4.6, temperature=0) demonstrates that architecture context reduces navigation steps by 33-44% (Wilcoxon p=0.009, Cohen's d=0.92), with no significant format difference detected across S-expression, JSON, YAML, and Markdown. Second, an artifact-vs-process experiment (15 tasks x 3 conditions) demonstrates that an automatically generated descriptor achieves 100% accuracy versus 80% blind (p=0.002, d=1.04), proving direct navigational value independent of developer self-clarification. Third, an observational field study across 7,012 Claude Code sessions shows 52% reduction in agent behavioral variance. A writer-side experiment (96 generation runs, 96 error injections) reveals critical failure mode differences: JSON fails atomically, YAML silently corrupts 50% of errors, S-expressions detect all structural completeness errors. We propose intent.lisp, an S-expression architecture descriptor, and open-source the Forge toolkit.

AI coding tools are widely adopted, but most teams plateau at prompt-and-review without a framework for systematic progression. This paper presents the AI Codebase Maturity Model (ACMM), a 6-level framework describing how codebases evolve from basic AI-assisted coding to fully autonomous systems. Inspired by CMMI, each level is defined by its feedback loop topology - the specific mechanisms that must exist before the next level becomes possible. I validate the model through a 100-day experience report maintaining KubeStellar Console, a CNCF Kubernetes dashboard built from scratch with Claude Code (Opus) and GitHub Copilot, and through the initial production deployment of Hive - an open-source multi-agent orchestration system that realizes Level 6: full autonomy. The system currently operates with 74 CI/CD workflows, 32 nightly test suites, 91% code coverage, and achieves bug-to-fix times under 30 minutes - 24 hours a day. The central finding: the intelligence of an AI-driven development system resides not in the AI model itself, but in the infrastructure of instructions, tests, metrics, and feedback loops that surround it. You cannot skip levels, and at each level, the thing that unlocks the next one is another feedback mechanism. Testing - the volume of test cases, the coverage thresholds, and the reliability of test execution - proved to be the single most important investment in the entire journey. v2 extends the model from 5 to 6 levels, adding Level 6 (Fully Autonomous) with Hive as reference implementation and Beads for cross-agent memory continuity, plus throughput acceleration data showing 5x PR throughput and 37x issue throughput from Level 2 to Level 6.

Transformer-based large language models (LLMs) and multi-agent systems (MAS) are increasingly embedded across the software development lifecycle (SDLC), yet their fairness implications for developer-facing tools remain underexplored despite their growing role in shaping what code is written, reviewed, and released. We present a rapid review of recent work on fairness in MAS, emphasizing LLM-enabled settings and relevance to software engineering. Starting from an initial set of 350 papers, we screened and filtered the corpus for relevance, retaining 18 studies for final analysis. Across these 18 studies, fairness is framed as a combination of trustworthy AI principles, bias reduction across groups, and interactional dynamics in collectives, while evaluation spans accuracy metrics on bias benchmarks, demographic disparity measures, and emergent MAS-specific notions such as conformity and bias amplification. Reported harms include representational, quality-of-service, security and privacy, and governance failures, which we relate to SDLC stages where evidence is most and least developed. We identify three persistent gaps: (1) fragmented, rarely MAS-specific evaluation practices that limit comparability, (2) limited generalization due to simplified environments and narrow attribute coverage, and (3) scarce, weakly evaluated mitigation and governance mechanisms aligned to real software workflows. These findings suggest MAS fairness research is not yet ready to support deployable, fairness-assured software systems, motivating MAS-aware benchmarks, consistent protocols, and lifecycle-spanning governance.

Enterprise software organizations face an escalating challenge in maintaining the integrity, security, and freshness of codebases that span hundreds of repositories, multiple programming languages, and thousands of interdependent packages. Existing approaches to codebase maintenance -- including static analysis, software composition analysis (SCA), and dependency management tools -- operate in isolation, address only narrow subsets of maintenance concerns, and require substantial manual intervention to propagate changes across interconnected systems. We present the Continuous Code Calibration Engine (CCCE), an event-driven, AI-agentic system that autonomously maintains enterprise codebases throughout the Software Development Life Cycle (SDLC). The CCCE introduces three key technical innovations: (1) a dynamic knowledge graph with bidirectional traversal algorithms that simultaneously compute forward impact propagation and backward test adequacy analysis; (2) an adaptive multi-stage gating framework that classifies calibration actions into four risk tiers using learned risk-confidence scoring rather than static rules; and (3) a multi-model continuous learning architecture operating at multiple temporal scales to refine calibration strategies, risk models, and organizational policies from operational feedback. We formalize the system's graph model, traversal algorithms, and decision logic, and demonstrate through three representative enterprise scenarios that the CCCE reduces mean time to remediation by enabling coordinated, cross-repository calibrations with human-in-the-loop (HITL) oversight where appropriate. The system generates atomic, semantically verified patches with progressive validation and intelligent rollback capabilities, providing end-to-end traceability from triggering events through calibration execution and outcome learning.

Embodied agents increasingly rely on modular capabilities that are installed, upgraded, composed, and governed at runtime, yet the interfaces between these modules are specified only at the level of message types, so integration failures surface only during execution. We present ECM Contracts, a contract-based interface model for embodied capability modules. Unlike conventional interfaces that specify only input and output types, ECM Contracts encode six dimensions of embodied execution: functional signature, behavioral assumptions, resource requirements, permission boundaries, recovery semantics, and version compatibility. On this model we build a compatibility framework that checks installation, composition, and upgrade before deployment, and a release discipline of version-aware compatibility classes and upgrade gates. We evaluate the prototype by predicting real, independently documented integration failures in the ROS ecosystem: contracts are reconstructed blind from each module's published interface, scored by a checker frozen before reconstruction against bugs from third-party datasets, and confirmed in live runtime execution. Contract checking predicts 56% and 72% of these documented failures across two substrates, against at most 17% for the strongest type and quality-of-service baselines, with the advantage statistically significant and zero false positives on matched-good controls. The resource and version dimensions carry most of this margin; the behavioral dimension adds little beyond the middleware's quality-of-service check, and we report the permission and recovery dimensions as forward-looking. Stable embodied software ecosystems require not just modular packaging but explicit contracts connecting composition, governance, and evolution.