Michel Chaudron

Siamak Farshidi, Amir Saberhabibi, Behbod Eskafi et al.

Selecting third-party software packages in open-source ecosystems like Python is challenging due to the large number of alternatives and limited transparent evidence for comparison. Generative AI tools are increasingly used in development workflows, but their suggestions often overlook dependency evaluation, emphasize popularity over suitability, and lack reproducibility. This creates risks for projects that require transparency, long-term reliability, maintainability, and informed architectural decisions. This study formulates software package selection as a Multi-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) problem and proposes a data-driven framework for technology evaluation. Automated data pipelines continuously collect and integrate software metadata, usage trends, vulnerability information, and developer sentiment from GitHub, PyPI, and Stack Overflow. These data are structured into a decision model representing relationships among packages, domain features, and quality attributes. The framework is implemented in PySelect, a decision support system that uses large language models to interpret user intent and query the model to identify contextually appropriate packages. The approach is evaluated using 798,669 Python scripts from 16,887 GitHub repositories and a user study based on the Technology Acceptance Model. Results show high data extraction precision, improved recommendation quality over generative AI baselines, and positive user evaluations of usefulness and ease of use. This work introduces a scalable, interpretable, and reproducible framework that supports evidence-based software selection using MCDM principles, empirical data, and AI-assisted intent modeling.

Arif Nurwidyantoro, Mojtaba Shahin, Michel Chaudron et al.

Background: There is a growing awareness of the importance of human values (e.g., inclusiveness, privacy) in software systems. However, there are no practical tools to support the integration of human values during software development. We argue that a tool that can identify human values from software development artefacts and present them to varying software development roles can (partially) address this gap. We refer to such a tool as human values dashboard. Further to this, our understanding of such a tool is limited. Aims: This study aims to (1) investigate the possibility of using a human values dashboard to help address human values during software development, (2) identify possible benefits of using a human values dashboard, and (3) elicit practitioners' needs from a human values dashboard. Method: We conducted an exploratory study by interviewing 15 software practitioners. A dashboard prototype was developed to support the interview process. We applied thematic analysis to analyse the collected data. Results: Our study finds that a human values dashboard would be useful for the development team (e.g., project manager, developer, tester). Our participants acknowledge that development artefacts, especially requirements documents and issue discussions, are the most suitable source for identifying values for the dashboard. Our study also yields a set of high-level user requirements for a human values dashboard (e.g., it shall allow determining values priority of a project). Conclusions: Our study suggests that a values dashboard is potentially used to raise awareness of values and support values-based decision-making in software development. Future work will focus on addressing the requirements and using issue discussions as potential artefacts for the dashboard.