Italo Santos

Fabio Santos, Joseph Vargovich, Bianca Trinkenreich et al.

Labeling issues with the skills required to complete them can help contributors to choose tasks in Open Source Software projects. However, manually labeling issues is time-consuming and error-prone, and current automated approaches are mostly limited to classifying issues as bugs/non-bugs. We investigate the feasibility and relevance of automatically labeling issues with what we call "API-domains," which are high-level categories of APIs. Therefore, we posit that the APIs used in the source code affected by an issue can be a proxy for the type of skills (e.g., DB, security, UI) needed to work on the issue. We ran a user study (n=74) to assess API-domain labels' relevancy to potential contributors, leveraged the issues' descriptions and the project history to build prediction models, and validated the predictions with contributors (n=20) of the projects. Our results show that (i) newcomers to the project consider API-domain labels useful in choosing tasks, (ii) labels can be predicted with a precision of 84% and a recall of 78.6% on average, (iii) the results of the predictions reached up to 71.3% in precision and 52.5% in recall when training with a project and testing in another (transfer learning), and (iv) project contributors consider most of the predictions helpful in identifying needed skills. These findings suggest our approach can be applied in practice to automatically label issues, assisting developers in finding tasks that better match their skills.

Ronnie de Souza Santos, Maria Teresa Baldassarre, Cleyton Magalhaes et al.

Large language models are increasingly becoming part of software engineering education, including activities involving empirical software engineering and evidence synthesis. This paper reports an educational experience involving the integration of reflective LLM use into an empirical methods assignment in a third-year software architecture course. Students were asked to develop a short research paper using either a rapid review or a gray literature review methodology and to disclose how LLMs were used throughout the assignment. We analyzed 146 student disclosure statements using a cross-analysis process combining LLM-assisted categorization with manual verification and refinement by the researchers. The reflections describe how students incorporated LLMs during activities such as brainstorming, methodological clarification, organization of findings, and writing refinement, while also reporting concerns regarding inaccuracies and verification of generated content. This experience report discusses lessons learned and educational implications for integrating AI-assisted technologies into empirical software engineering education.

Ronnie de Souza Santos, Italo Santos, Mariana Bento et al.

Background: Cheating in university education is commonly described as context dependent and influenced by assessment design, institutional norms, and student interpretation. In software engineering education, programming oriented coursework has historically involved ambiguity around collaboration, reuse, and external assistance. Recently, large language models (LLMs) have introduced additional mediation in the production of code and related artifacts. Aims: This study investigates how software engineering students describe experiences of using LLMs in ways they perceived as inappropriate, disallowed, or misaligned with course expectations. Method: A cross sectional survey was conducted with 116 undergraduate software engineering students from multiple countries, combining quantitative summaries with qualitative data. Results: Reported LLM cheating practices occurred primarily in programming assignments, routine coursework, and documentation tasks, often in contexts of time pressure and unclear guidance. Use during quizzes and exams was less frequent and more consistently identified as a violation. Students reported awareness of academic and professional consequences regarding LLM cheating, while formal sanctions were perceived as limited. Conclusions: Our study indicates that reported LLM misuse in software engineering is associated with assessment and instructional conditions, suggesting a need for clearer alignment between assessment design, learning objectives, and expectations for LLM use.

Ronnie de Souza Santos, Cleyton Magalhães, Giuseppe Destefanis et al.

Empathy has been discussed as a relevant human capability in software engineering, particularly in activities that require understanding users, stakeholders, and the societal implications of technological systems. This relevance becomes more pronounced in the context of artificial intelligence, where software increasingly participates in decisions that affect diverse individuals and communities. However, limited guidance exists on how empathy can be integrated into technical software engineering education in ways that connect with the development of AI-enabled systems. This study investigates teaching practices that educators use to incorporate empathy into software engineering courses. Using qualitative analysis of educator-reported practices, we identified five categories through which empathy is operationalized within technical coursework: societal framing of AI systems, fairness and accessibility considerations in design and evaluation, representation of diverse users, stakeholder role awareness and responsibility, and structured reflection and feedback during development processes. The findings indicate that empathy can be embedded within core development activities rather than taught as a separate topic, enabling students to reason about bias, accessibility, accountability, and the societal consequences of AI technologies. These results contribute a structured view of how empathy-oriented practices can be incorporated into software engineering education to support the preparation of students who will develop AI-enabled systems.

Cleyton Magalhes, Ronnie de Souza Santos, Bimpe Ayoola et al.

\textbf{Background:} Fairness and diversity are receiving growing attention in software engineering, particularly as AI and machine learning systems increasingly influence decision-making processes. While fairness is often examined at the algorithmic or data level, there is limited understanding of how it is addressed during the early stages of software development. Moreover, little is known about how team diversity affects fairness-related decisions in software projects. \textbf{Aims:} This study investigates how diversity in software teams influences fairness-aware behavior during requirements prioritization. \textbf{Method:} A controlled experiment was conducted with 27 pairs of software engineering students, including 13 LGBTQ diverse pairs and 14 non diverse pairs. Each pair prioritized user stories with varying fairness implications. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze attitudes and prioritization outcomes, and thematic analysis was applied to examine the reasoning behind participants' decisions. \textbf{Results:} Both groups demonstrated general alignment with fairness principles, prioritizing features that promoted equitable treatment and rejecting those that posed fairness risks. However, LGBTQ diverse pairs were more consistent in rejecting fairness risking stories and made fewer fairness related misprioritization errors. Their reasoning emphasized inclusion, non discrimination, and ethical responsibility, whereas non diverse pairs adopted a more pragmatic, goal oriented perspective. \textbf{Conclusions:} The findings indicate that fairness should be considered from the earliest stages of software development. Team diversity can enhance the identification and interpretation of fairness issues during requirements analysis, fostering more reflective and inclusive decision making.