Antonio Pedro Santos Alves

Bianca Trinkenreich, Fabio Calefato, Kelly Blincoe et al.

Context: Software engineering (SE) researchers increasingly study Generative AI (GenAI) while also incorporating it into their own research practices. Despite rapid adoption, there is limited empirical evidence on how GenAI is used in SE research and its implications for research practices and governance. Aims: We conduct a large-scale survey of 457 SE researchers publishing in top venues between 2023 and 2025. Method: Using quantitative and qualitative analyses, we examine who uses GenAI and why, where it is used across research activities, and how researchers perceive its benefits, opportunities, challenges, risks, and governance. Results: GenAI use is widespread, with many researchers reporting pressure to adopt and align their work with it. Usage is concentrated in writing and early-stage activities, while methodological and analytical tasks remain largely human-driven. Although productivity gains are widely perceived, concerns about trust, correctness, and regulatory uncertainty persist. Researchers highlight risks such as inaccuracies and bias, emphasize mitigation through human oversight and verification, and call for clearer governance, including guidance on responsible use and peer review. Conclusion: We provide a fine-grained, SE-specific characterization of GenAI use across research activities, along with taxonomies of GenAI use cases for research and peer review, opportunities, risks, mitigation strategies, and governance needs. These findings establish an empirical baseline for the responsible integration of GenAI into academic practice.

Davide Taibi, Henry Muccini, Karthik Vaidhyanathan et al.

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.

Marcos Kalinowski, Daniel Mendez, Görkem Giray et al.

Context: Machine learning (ML)-enabled systems are being increasingly adopted by companies aiming to enhance their products and operational processes. Objective: This paper aims to deliver a comprehensive overview of the current status quo of engineering ML-enabled systems and lay the foundation to steer practically relevant and problem-driven academic research. Method: We conducted an international survey to collect insights from practitioners on the current practices and problems in engineering ML-enabled systems. We received 188 complete responses from 25 countries. We conducted quantitative statistical analyses on contemporary practices using bootstrapping with confidence intervals and qualitative analyses on the reported problems using open and axial coding procedures. Results: Our survey results reinforce and extend existing empirical evidence on engineering ML-enabled systems, providing additional insights into typical ML-enabled systems project contexts, the perceived relevance and complexity of ML life cycle phases, and current practices related to problem understanding, model deployment, and model monitoring. Furthermore, the qualitative analysis provides a detailed map of the problems practitioners face within each ML life cycle phase and the problems causing overall project failure. Conclusions: The results contribute to a better understanding of the status quo and problems in practical environments. We advocate for the further adaptation and dissemination of software engineering practices to enhance the engineering of ML-enabled systems.

Silvio Alonso, Antonio Pedro Santos Alves, Lucas Romao et al.

[Context] The increasing adoption of machine learning (ML) in software systems demands specialized ideation approaches that address ML-specific challenges, including data dependencies, technical feasibility, and alignment between business objectives and probabilistic system behavior. Traditional ideation methods like Lean Inception lack structured support for these ML considerations, which can result in misaligned product visions and unrealistic expectations. [Goal] This paper presents Define-ML, a framework that extends Lean Inception with tailored activities - Data Source Mapping, Feature-to-Data Source Mapping, and ML Mapping - to systematically integrate data and technical constraints into early-stage ML product ideation. [Method] We developed and validated Define-ML following the Technology Transfer Model, conducting both static validation (with a toy problem) and dynamic validation (in a real-world industrial case study). The analysis combined quantitative surveys with qualitative feedback, assessing utility, ease of use, and intent of adoption. [Results] Participants found Define-ML effective for clarifying data concerns, aligning ML capabilities with business goals, and fostering cross-functional collaboration. The approach's structured activities reduced ideation ambiguity, though some noted a learning curve for ML-specific components, which can be mitigated by expert facilitation. All participants expressed the intention to adopt Define-ML. [Conclusion] Define-ML provides an openly available, validated approach for ML product ideation, building on Lean Inception's agility while aligning features with available data and increasing awareness of technical feasibility.

Gabrielle O'Brien, Antonio Pedro Santos Alves, Sebastian Baltes et al.

Programming assistants powered by large language models (LLMs) have become widely available, with conversational assistants like ChatGPT proving particularly accessible to less experienced programmers. However, the varied capabilities of these tools across model versions and the mixed availability of extensions that enable web search, code execution, or retrieval-augmented generation create opportunities for user misconceptions about what systems can and cannot do. Such misconceptions may lead to over-reliance, unproductive practices, or insufficient quality control in LLM-assisted programming. Here, we aim to characterize misconceptions that users of conversational LLM-based assistants may have in programming contexts. Using a two-phase approach, we first brainstorm and catalog user misconceptions that may occur, and then conduct a qualitative analysis to examine whether these conceptual issues surface in naturalistic Python-programming conversations with an LLM-based chatbot drawn from an openly available dataset. Indeed, we see evidence that some users have misplaced expectations about the availability of LLM-based chatbot features like web access, code execution, or non-text output generation. We also see potential evidence for deeper conceptual issues around the scope of information required to debug, validate, and optimize programs. Our findings reinforce the need for designing LLM-based tools that more clearly communicate their programming capabilities to users.