María Teresa Baldassarre

Maria T. Baldassarre, Danilo Caivano, Berenice Fernandez Nieto et al.

In recent months, the social impact of Artificial Intelligence (AI) has gained considerable public interest, driven by the emergence of Generative AI models, ChatGPT in particular. The rapid development of these models has sparked heated discussions regarding their benefits, limitations, and associated risks. Generative models hold immense promise across multiple domains, such as healthcare, finance, and education, to cite a few, presenting diverse practical applications. Nevertheless, concerns about potential adverse effects have elicited divergent perspectives, ranging from privacy risks to escalating social inequality. This paper adopts a methodology to delve into the societal implications of Generative AI tools, focusing primarily on the case of ChatGPT. It evaluates the potential impact on several social sectors and illustrates the findings of a comprehensive literature review of both positive and negative effects, emerging trends, and areas of opportunity of Generative AI models. This analysis aims to facilitate an in-depth discussion by providing insights that can inspire policy, regulation, and responsible development practices to foster a human-centered AI.

Maria Teresa Baldassarre, Domenico Gigante, Marcos Kalinowski et al.

Recently, there has been growing attention on behalf of both academic and practice communities towards the ability of Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems to operate responsibly and ethically. As a result, a plethora of frameworks and guidelines have appeared to support practitioners in implementing Trustworthy AI applications (TAI). However, little research has been done to investigate whether such frameworks are being used and how. In this work, we study the vision AI practitioners have on TAI principles, how they address them, and what they would like to have - in terms of tools, knowledge, or guidelines - when they attempt to incorporate such principles into the systems they develop. Through a survey and semi-structured interviews, we systematically investigated practitioners' challenges and needs in developing TAI systems. Based on these practical findings, we highlight recommendations to help AI practitioners develop Trustworthy AI applications.

Maria Teresa Baldassarre, Neil Ernst, Ben Hermann et al.

In any field, finding the "leading edge" of research is an on-going challenge. Researchers cannot appease reviewers and educators cannot teach to the leading edge of their field if no one agrees on what is the state-of-the-art. Using a novel crowdsourced "reuse graph" approach, we propose here a new method to learn this state-of-the-art. Our reuse graphs are less effort to build and verify than other community monitoring methods (e.g. artifact tracks or citation-based searches). Based on a study of 170 papers from software engineering (SE) conferences in 2020, we have found over 1,600 instances of reuse; i.e., reuse is rampant in SE research. Prior pessimism about a lack of reuse in SE research may have been a result of using the wrong methods to measure the wrong things.

Maria Teresa Baldassarre, Danilo Caivano, Davide Fucci et al.

In this paper, we investigate the effect of TDD, as compared to a non-TDD approach, as well as its retainment (or retention) over a time span of (about) six months. To pursue these objectives, we conducted a (quantitative) longitudinal cohort study with 30 novice developers (i.e., third-year undergraduate students in Computer Science). We observed that TDD affects neither the external quality of software products nor developers' productivity. However, we observed that the participants applying TDD produced significantly more tests, with a higher fault-detection capability than those using a non-TDD approach. As for the retainment of TDD, we found that TDD is retained by novice developers for at least six months.

Simone Romano, Davide Fucci, Giuseppe Scanniello et al.

Researcher Bias (RB) occurs when researchers influence the results of an empirical study based on their expectations.RB might be due to the use of Questionable Research Practices(QRPs). In research fields like medicine, blinding techniques have been applied to counteract RB. We conducted an explorative qualitative survey to investigate RB in Software Engineering (SE)experiments, with respect to (i) QRPs potentially leading to RB, (ii) causes behind RB, and (iii) possible actions to counteract including blinding techniques. Data collection was based on semi-structured interviews. We interviewed nine active experts in the empirical SE community. We then analyzed the transcripts of these interviews through thematic analysis. We found that some QRPs are acceptable in certain cases. Also, it appears that the presence of RB is perceived in SE and, to counteract RB, a number of solutions have been highlighted: some are intended for SE researchers and others for the boards of SE research outlets.

Katia Romero Felizardo, Érica Ferreira de Souza, Bianca Minetto Napoleão et al.

Context: Several researchers have reported their experiences in applying secondary studies (Systematic Literature Reviews - SLRs and Systematic Mappings - SMs) in Software Engineering (SE). However, there is still a lack of studies discussing the value of performing secondary studies in an academic context. Goal: The main goal of this study is to provide an overview on the use of secondary studies in an academic context. Method: Two empirical research methods were used. Initially, we conducted an SM to identify the available and relevant studies on the use of secondary studies as a research methodology for conducting SE research projects. Secondly, a survey was performed with 64 SE researchers to identify their perception related to the value of performing secondary studies to support their research projects. Results: Our results show benefits of using secondary studies in the academic context, such as, providing an overview of the literature as well as identifying relevant research literature on a research area enabling to find reasons to explain why a research project should be approved for a grant and/or supporting decisions made in a research project. Difficulties faced by SE graduate students with secondary studies are that they tend to be conducted by a team and it demands more effort than a traditional review. Conclusions: Secondary studies are valuable to graduate students. They should consider conducting a secondary study for their research project due to the benefits and contributions provided to develop the overall project. However, the advice of an experienced supervisor is essential to avoid bias. In addition, the acquisition of skills can increase student's motivation to pursue their research projects and prepare them for both academic or industrial careers.

Simone Romano, Giuseppe Scanniello, Maria Teresa Baldassarre et al.

Test-driven Development (TDD) is an incremental approach to software development. Despite it is claimed to improve both quality of software and developers' productivity, the research on the claimed effects of TDD has so far shown inconclusive results. Some researchers have ascribed these inconclusive results to the negative affective states that TDD would provoke. A previous (baseline) experiment has, therefore, studied the affective reactions of (novice) developers---i.e., 29 third-year undergraduates in Computer Science (CS)---when practicing TDD to implement software. To validate the results of the baseline experiment, we conducted a replicated experiment that studies the affective reactions of novice developers when applying TDD to develop software. Developers in the treatment group carried out a development task using TDD, while those in the control group used a non-TDD approach. To measure the affective reactions of developers, we used the Self-Assessment Manikin instrument complemented with a liking dimension. The most important differences between the baseline and replicated experiments are: (i) the kind of novice developers involved in the experiments---third-year vs. second-year undergraduates in CS from two different universities; and (ii) their number---29 vs. 59. The results of the replicated experiment do not show any difference in the affective reactions of novice developers. Instead, the results of the baseline experiment suggest that developers seem to like TDD less as compared to a non-TDD approach and that developers following TDD seem to like implementing code less than the other developers, while testing code seems to make them less happy.

Simone Romano, Davide Fucci, Maria Teresa Baldassarre et al.

We study whether and in which phase Test-Driven Development (TDD) influences affective states of novice developers in terms of pleasure, arousal, dominance, and liking. We performed a controlled experiment with 29 novice developers. Developers in the treatment group performed a development task using TDD, whereas those in the control group used a non-TDD development approach. We compared the affective reactions to the development approaches, as well as to the implementation and testing phases, exploiting a lightweight, powerful, and widely used tool, i.e., Self-Assessment Manikin. We observed that there is a difference between the two development approaches in terms of affective reactions. Therefore, it seems that affective reactions play an important role when applying TDD and their investigation could help researchers to better understand such a development approach

Bruno Cartaxo, Gustavo Pinto, Baldoino Fonseca et al.

Background: One of the most important current challenges of Software Engineering (SE) research is to provide relevant evidence to practice. In health related fields, Rapid Reviews (RRs) have shown to be an effective method to achieve that goal. However, little is known about how the SE research community perceives the potential applicability of RRs. Aims: The goal of this study is to understand the SE research community viewpoints towards the use of RRs as a means to provide evidence to practitioners. Method: To understand their viewpoints, we invited 37 researchers to analyze 50 opinion statements about RRs, and rate them according to what extent they agree with each statement. Q-Methodology was employed to identify the most salient viewpoints, represented by the so called factors. Results: Four factors were identified: Factor A groups undecided researchers that need more evidence before using RRs; Researchers grouped in Factor B are generally positive about RRs, but highlight the need to define minimum standards; Factor C researchers are more skeptical and reinforce the importance of high quality evidence; Researchers aligned to Factor D have a pragmatic point of view, considering RRs can be applied based on the context and constraints faced by practitioners. Conclusions: In conclusion, although there are opposing viewpoints, there are also some common grounds. For example, all viewpoints agree that both RRs and Systematic Reviews can be poorly or well conducted.

Davide Fucci, Simone Romano, Maria Teresa Baldassarre et al.

Background: Test-Driven Development (TDD) is an agile software development practice, which is claimed to boost both external quality of software products and developers' productivity. Aims: We want to study (i) the TDD effects on the external quality of software products as well as the developers' productivity, and (ii) the retainment of TDD over a period of five months. Method: We conducted a (quantitative) longitudinal cohort study with 30 third year undergraduate students in Computer Science at the University of Bari in Italy. Results: The use of TDD has a statistically significant effect neither on the external quality of software products nor on the developers' productivity. However, we observed that participants using TDD produced significantly more tests than those applying a non-TDD development process and that the retainment of TDD is particularly noticeable in the amount of tests written. Conclusions: Our results should encourage software companies to adopt TDD because who practices TDD tends to write more tests---having more tests can come in handy when testing software systems or localizing faults---and it seems that novice developers retain TDD.