arXiv Science⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2501.15691

An Empirical Study on Decision-Making Aspects in Responsible Software Engineering for AI

Lekshmi Murali Rani·Faezeh Mohammadi·Robert Feldt·Richard Berntsson Svensson
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Incorporating responsible practices into software engineering (SE) for AI is essential to ensure ethical principles, societal impact, and accountability remain at the forefront of AI system design and deployment. This study investigates the ethical challenges and complexities inherent in responsible software engineering (RSE) for AI, underscoring the need for practical,scenario-driven operational guidelines. Given the complexity of AI and the relative inexperience of professionals in this rapidly evolving field, continuous learning and market adaptation are crucial. Through qualitative interviews with seven practitioners(conducted until saturation), quantitative surveys of 51 practitioners, and static validation of results with four industry experts in AI, this study explores how personal values, emerging roles, and awareness of AIs societal impact influence responsible decision-making in RSE for AI. A key finding is the gap between the current state of the art and actual practice in RSE for AI, particularly in the failure to operationalize ethical and responsible decision-making within the software engineering life cycle for AI. While ethical issues in RSE for AI largely mirror those found in broader SE process, the study highlights a distinct lack of operational frameworks and resources to guide RSE practices for AI effectively. The results reveal that current ethical guidelines are insufficiently implemented at the operational level, reinforcing the complexity of embedding ethics throughout the software engineering life cycle. The study concludes that interdisciplinary collaboration, H-shaped competencies(Ethical-Technical dual competence), and a strong organizational culture of ethics are critical for fostering RSE practices for AI, with a particular focus on transparency and accountability.

Explore related subjects

cs.SE

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Lekshmi Murali Rani, Faezeh Mohammadi, Robert Feldt, Richard Berntsson Svensson. 2025-04-28. An Empirical Study on Decision-Making Aspects in Responsible Software Engineering for AI. https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.15691

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Is Vibe Coding Safe? Benchmarking Vulnerability of Agent-Generated Code in Real-World Tasks

Vibe coding is a new software development paradigm in which human engineers prompt a large language model (LLM) agent to complete complex coding tasks with little supervision. Although vibe coding is increasingly adopted, is the generated code really safe to deploy in production? To investigate this question, we propose SUSVIBES, a benchmark consisting of 186 feature-request software engineering tasks from real-world open-source projects, for which, human programmers committed vulnerable implementations. We evaluate 12 widely used coding agentic settings with frontier models on the benchmark. Disturbingly, all agents perform poorly in terms of software security. Although 57% of the solutions from SWE-Agent with Claude 4 Sonnet are functionally correct, only 11.8% are secure. Further experiments demonstrate that preliminary security strategies, such as augmenting the feature request with vulnerability hints, cannot mitigate these security issues. Our findings raise serious concerns about the widespread adoption of vibe coding, particularly in security-sensitive applications. The code and dataset are available at https://github.com/LeiLiLab/susvibes. The leaderboard is at https://leililab.github.io/susvibes-leaderboard.

cs.SE↗
arXiv2026

Why3-py: A Tool for Formal Verification of Hypothesis Testing and Meta-Analysis in Python

The reproducibility crisis in scientific research has received widespread recognition, thereby increasing the importance of meta-analyses that integrate statistical analyses from multiple studies. However, statistical methods often have ambiguous and implicit underlying assumptions, which can lead to their erroneous applications and interpretations. To address this issue, we propose a formal verification framework for statistical Python programs. Specifically, we present Why3-py, a Python front-end for the Why3 verification platform that transforms Python code into verification-oriented WhyML representations, addressing the challenges arising from Python's dynamic typing and runtime polymorphism. Furthermore, we extend the StatWhy tool to support the verification of meta-analysis methods. These tools enable meta-analysts to identify overlooked assumptions and misuse of analyses, and to verify the correct use of hypothesis testing and meta-analysis methods in Python code.

cs.SE↗
arXiv2026

What is the Difference Between Me and You? Benchmarking the Quality Gap Between Human-Written and AI-Generated Code

AI coding assistants are becoming co-authors of production software, yet their evaluation centers on functional correctness, leaving open whether their code differs from human code in the quality dimensions dominating lifecycle cost. We compare human-written and AI-generated code at scale: 787,562 function pairs across Python, Java, and C, each human function mined from open-source repositories paired with implementations generated from its docstring by three AI assistants (OpenAI GPT models, DeepSeek-Coder, Qwen2.5-Coder). We characterize structural complexity and statistical naturalness, and map static-analysis findings onto Orthogonal Defect Classification for defects and the Common Weakness Enumeration for vulnerabilities, making authors and languages directly comparable. AI-generated code is structurally compressed and stylistically templated: roughly half the size and branching of human code, clustering apart at the style level. Defect profiles differ in kind: human code concentrates issues of mature codebases, AI code repetitive boilerplate; security is language-dependent, with LLMs producing more, and more severe, findings in Python and Java but fewer high-severity memory-safety findings than humans in C. Once size is controlled for, complexity metrics carry little signal, while naturalness separates authors. Finally, we release CQBench, a benchmark of 27,346 issue-prone tasks with baselines and an evaluation pipeline for quality assurance and security testing.

cs.SE↗