arXiv subjects

Anita Sarma

Publications and source records attributed to Anita Sarma.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

TACT: A Pragmatic Approach to Qualitative Analysis with an AI Council

Qualitative data can tell software teams what their stakeholders need, yet rigorously analyzing thousands of qualitative responses takes expert time that few teams can afford or justify. Teams therefore often face a false choice: leave the responses unanalyzed, or hand them to a large language model and accept its interpretation and judgment. In this paper, we take a pragmatic approach to AI-assisted qualitative analysis and present TACT (Traceable AI Council for Thematic analysis), a procedure that enables such analysis at scale while keeping teams in control of interpretation and judgment. TACT comes in two variants: TACT-Lite, the core AI council procedure, and TACT-Full, which adds adversaries (models from other model families that critique each model's output) and a decision model that surfaces high-uncertainty code assignments. We evaluated TACT on an independent dataset of 256 Stack Overflow threads qualitatively coded by other researchers. Against their labels, TACT's candidate codebook achieved an F1 of 0.75-0.77 and its final coding an F1 of 0.71-0.72. On a held-out sample, agreement between our own manual coding and TACT's coding was Cohen's $κ$ of 0.79-0.85. TACT is also economical: model calls cost \$13.77 (TACT-Lite) to \$33.59 (TACT-Full) per 100 threads. Finally, drawing on our experience building and validating TACT, we identify pitfalls in AI-assisted qualitative analysis, describe safeguards to address them, and offer guidance for teams and researchers applying TACT in practice.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2026

The Vibe Paradox: What EEG Reveals About Your Brain When Vibe Coding

Background: Much of the enthusiasm for vibe coding rests on two intuitive beliefs: (1) that developers stay invested even when they no longer write the code, and (2) that delegating more of the work to AI lowers their cognitive load. Objective: Our goal was to investigate whether developers' neurophysiological states and interactions with AI are consistent with these beliefs when they work with agentic vs. non-agentic AI on their own project vs. a legacy codebase. Method: We conducted an exploratory within-subjects crossover study with 11 participants across 22 sessions. Each participant used GitHub Copilot Chat in one session and Cursor Agents in the other, working on their own project and a legacy codebase, with tool-codebase pairings randomly assigned and session order counterbalanced. We recorded participants' EEG, on-screen activity, and prompts, and analyzed 7,924 EEG data points, 984 activities, and 141 prompts. Results: Our findings contradict both beliefs. With the agent, participants remained indifferent to task outcomes, even on their own projects, and cognitive load was higher than with non-agentic AI. Furthermore, their ways of interacting shifted: with non-agentic AI, participants asked how the code worked and read it to verify changes; with the agent, they described desired app behavior and checked results in the running app. Conclusion: Our study reveals a vibe paradox: delegating to an agent left participants motivationally disinterested, even on their own projects, without relieving cognitive load, while coinciding with increased trust in AI. The community should treat this paradox as a first-class concern if developers and their AI agents are to go far together, and not just fast.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2026

When AI Joins the Team! A Model of How AI Adoption Relates To Social Patterns in Software Engineering Teams

Context: The growing adoption of AI-assisted development tools is changing how software teams collaborate, share knowledge, and coordinate, yet its consequences for team social dynamics remain largely unexplored. Gap: It is unclear whether AI adoption is associated with an increase or reduction in community smells,socio-technical anti-patterns reflecting coordination and communication breakdowns,and through which mechanisms. Method: Grounded in Transactive Memory Systems (TMS) theory, we validate instruments for HumanAI and HumanHuman interaction along two TMS dimensions, Specialization and Coordination, and test five PLS-SEM models on survey data from 152 software professionals using AI tools. Community smell constructs were derived from the literature and validated through expert surveys and factor analysis. Results: AI adoption relates to community smells not in a single way, but through mechanisms depending on the work. In specialization work, AI is associated with higher knowledge-sharing peer interaction, which is in turn associated with fewer smells. In coordination work, AI is directly associated with higher communication quality, complementing rather than replacing human interaction. Contributions: We provide an empirically validated, TMS-grounded model showing that the AIcommunity-smell relationship is contingent on the type of collaboration, with a reusable instrument and evidence-based implications for research and practice.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2026

Mentorship, Interrupted: How GenAI Disrupts the GSoC Pipeline and Why Mentors Matter More

Generative AI (GenAI) makes open source software (OSS) contributions cheaper to produce, and it makes them say less about the people who produced them. In OSS mentoring, that matters: mentors judge what newcomers understand from their work, and newcomers learn from mentors' feedback. We studied how GenAI is changing mentoring in Google Summer of Code (GSoC), a program in which today's mentees can become tomorrow's mentors. We screened every thread on GSoC's restricted mentors' mailing list from November 2022 through March 2026 and interviewed 15 mentors and organization administrators. GenAI helped with onboarding, coordination, and first-pass review, but proposals, entry contributions, and mentees' answers became weaker evidence of what newcomers could do. Mentors made up the difference by checking, and that checking drew on the same time and goodwill the program needs to renew itself; one organization had withdrawn from GSoC. Responses ranged from banning GenAI to accepting it, and the boundary an organization drew determined who did the checking. We propose AIM, a decision framework that links acceptable GenAI use, integration into the mentoring pipeline, and mentoring capacity, to help organizations choose responses they can sustain.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2026

"To Boldly Go Where No One Has Gone Before" What Has AI Let Developers Unlock?

Measuring AI by how much faster developers work is like judging electricity by how much faster it spun a steam-era factory. A fuller measure asks what new work becomes possible. We surveyed 331 software developers at Microsoft about what AI lets them do that they could not do before and analyzed their answers using reflexive thematic analysis with a human-in-the-loop, multi-model AI council. Developers described doing familiar work faster (Faster, 45%), undertaking work previously beyond their reach (Further, 36.9%), and taking on new kinds of work centered on building for and directing AI agents (Afresh, 12.4%). Across these accounts, learning and scaffolding ran in both directions: developers learned new skills with AI while externalizing their tacit knowledge as the context and standards that guide AI's work. Drawing on Vygotsky's zone of proximal development, we frame developers and AI as joint learners whose zones meet at the skill-judgment nexus: AI can supply skill faster than it can reliably judge its own work, and developers must continuously bridge that gap. Whether they do sets them on one of two paths. On one, developers' judgment grows alongside AI's skill, and they codify what they learn so the loop keeps turning. On the other, they become hollow orchestrators, approving work they can no longer judge and losing the identity and meaning they once drew from it. Based on our findings, we offer a two-way scaffolding playbook to help developers, teams, and tool builders take the first path.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2026

The EPIC Framework for Spec-Driven Development

One practitioner we interviewed said their team writes "must" instead of "should" when instructing a coding agent, because the agent may treat "should" as optional. Small wording choices matter because agents often fill gaps in their instructions with their own assumptions. Spec-driven development (SDD) asks developers to write a specification, plan, and tasks before the agent writes code. SDD frameworks provide templates for these artifacts, but the templates do not help developers judge whether they have written enough or clearly enough. We studied what good SDD specifications contain. We scored the artifacts of 114 open-source SDD repositories against ISO/IEC/IEEE 29148 and derived practices from the highest-scoring ones. The resulting framework, EPIC, has 40 practices in 10 quality dimensions that guide developers in making expectations and decisions explicit in specifications, plans, and tasks for coding agents. The majority of SDD practitioners (N=15) endorsed every practice. Repositories in the top third of specification quality spent 11.8% of their commits on bug fixes, compared with 20.4% in the bottom third, and had a median of 4x as many contributors. Developers can use EPIC to find and fill the gaps in a specification before the agent does.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2026

Apply- Mag: One Tool to Support Many Inclusive Design Methods

Doing inclusive design in HCI practice can be labor-intensive, a costly barrier that some companies and HCI practitioners may be unwilling or unable to overcome. Yet, not doing inclusive design is costly too, in the form of UX barriers that disproportionately disadvantage under-served user populations. To address this problem, we introduce Apply- Mag, an LLM-powered tool to support HCI practitioners' work to design their products inclusively to wide ranges of users. Apply- Mag is general, supporting any inclusive design method that can be expressed as Mags (i.e., using attribute ranges and heuristics). It is also effective: Empirical results with researcher and practitioner teams using various combinations of two Mags on 7 products showed Apply- Mag precision averaging 90-99% and recall averaging 82-89%. Further, its environmental costs were reasonable, costing about the same resources as 2-4 ordinary Google searches.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2026

What Makes a Great Co-Worker in an AI-Native Workplace?

As knowledge work grows interdependent between humans and AI, we ask what makes a great co-worker in an AI-native workplace. To answer this, we conducted 22 interviews and a large-scale mixed-methods survey of 1,534 knowledge workers at a multinational technology company. We contribute BACI, a framework of 75 co-worker qualities that apply to humans and AI, spanning Benevolence, Ability, Cooperativeness, and Integrity. Comparing priorities for humans and AI identified 11 co-worker archetypes and revealed disagreement over whether AI should have warmth, take initiative, or own outcomes. We also show how priorities for these archetypes varied with workers' individual characteristics. Lastly, we contribute a taxonomy of AI work etiquette capturing the obligations co-workers expect of one another when preparing, sharing, and taking responsibility for AI-supported work. Based on these findings, we derive implications to inform worker-centric AI and workplace design.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2026

Toward an Actionable Socioeconomic-Aware HCI

Although inequities for individuals in different socioeconomic situations are starting to capture widespread attention, less attention has been given to the socioeconomic inequities that saturate socioeconomic-diverse individuals' user experiences. To enable HCI practitioners to attend to such inequities and avoid unwittingly introducing them, in this paper we consider a wide body of research relevant to how an individual's socioeconomic status (SES) can affect their user experiences with technology. We synthesize this foundational research to produce a core set of 6 evidence-based SES "facets" (attribute types and value ranges) that directly relate to user experiences for individuals in different SES strata. We then harness these SES facets to produce actionable paths forward -- including a new structured method we call SocioeconomicMag -- by which HCI researchers and practitioners can bring new socioeconomic-aware practices into their everyday HCI work.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2026

''You Can't Open an LLM With a Screwdriver'': The De-Democratization of Software

Claims that generative AI will soon write all of the code have led to predictions that programming is nearing its end. In this vision paper, we argue against this assumption that broader access to code generation necessarily democratizes software development, i.e., everyone can code but we have to distinguish between access and control: by access, we mean the ability of more people, including non-experts and less-experienced developers, to generate code-like artifacts with AI; by control, we mean the capacity to inspect, evaluate, integrate, maintain, and govern those artifacts as dependable software. While AI may broaden access to code production, control may become more concentrated among those who own or understand the code, software practices, infrastructure, evaluation practices, and deployment pipelines. Grounded in an expert panel, our vision paper argues that AI does not eliminate software engineering expertise but shifts where that expertise becomes most critical. The locus of software engineering expertise is shifting toward intent specification: orchestrating and governing AI behavior, evaluating software behavior, and integrating software systems. We conclude this paper by identifying research opportunities for education, tools, and policy that can help the software engineering community respond to the AI era with greater agency, accountability, and adaptability.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2026

You Shall Not Pass! Where and Why Developers Draw The Line on AI Autonomy

As AI takes on more software work, the line between human and AI effort is shifting. Where developers draw that line around AI autonomy bears on how we design tools and roles that preserve meaningful work. Drawing on cognitive appraisal theory, work design, and automation research, we conducted a mixed-methods study of 448 professional developers at Microsoft to investigate their accepted levels of AI autonomy across software engineering work. Most developers accepted AI producing work under their oversight, although accepted autonomy varied substantively across tasks and individuals. Acceptance was lowest for identity-defining, human-facing, and design-oriented work, and higher among developers with more AI experience and risk tolerance. Task accountability was associated with lower odds of allowing AI to act on developers' behalf, whereas task identity was associated with lower odds of granting AI decision-making autonomy. Task demands had the opposite effect, increasing willingness to delegate decision-making to AI. Our findings suggest that preferences for AI autonomy reflect how developers cognitively experience their work, highlighting important considerations for designing meaningful work.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2026

"AI Slop is DDoSing Open Source": Understanding the Impact of AI-Generated Contributions on Open Source Sustainability

Open source software (OSS) communities are facing increasing pressure from Generative AI (GenAI) tools. We call it AI-DDoS: a denial-of-service effect in which plausible but low-quality AI-generated contributions overwhelm OSS community capacity. Using a phenomenon-based mixed-methods approach, we first analyze practitioner accounts from Reddit, OSS mentor mailing lists, and blogs to identify six recurring themes and derive hypotheses. We then evaluate these hypotheses using Bayesian Structural Time Series analysis across 294 repositories with over 2 million pull requests and issues. Our results show that while PR volume increased in 2025, merge rates declined, with one-time contributors experiencing an 18.18% drop in PR merge rates relative to the counterfactual. Finally, we identify 11 remediation strategies through practitioners' interviews and validate them with a survey of 229 OSS practitioners, grouping them into preservative, adaptive, and transformative orientations. Our findings show that AI-DDoS is not only a contribution-volume problem but a sustainability trap: communities often default to low-effort defensive strategies that protect short-term review capacity while making openness difficult to sustain.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2026

Restructure This: Using AI to Restructure Onboarding Documents to Reduce Cognitive Overload

Onboarding documentation is critical for attracting and retaining newcomers in open source software (OSS). However, it is often presented as dense, inconsistently structured, and fragmented presentations that are difficult to understand, which creates cognitive overload leading to frustration, errors, and abandonment. Here, we investigate how Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning (CTML) strategies can be used to restructure OSS documentation. We use a GenAI-based pipeline to operationalize these strategies to restructure OSS documentation through our prototype VisDoc. VisDoc segments documentation into task-based units, infers workflows, removes redundancy, and generates multimodal explanations. An expert evaluation (N=4) affirmed VisDoc's completeness, accuracy, and adoptability; A between-subjects evaluation (N=14) with newcomers found that VisDoc participants achieved higher task success, had significantly lower cognitive load, and perceived higher usability. The contributions of this work include a CTML-grounded analysis of onboarding challenges, a GenAI-based documentation restructuring pipeline, and empirical evidence that cognitively informed documentation restructuring reduces cognitive load and improves usability and task performance in OSS.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2026

Guidelines for Cultivating a Sense of Belonging to Reduce Developer Burnout

Burnout affects software developers' mental and physical well-being and contributes to turnover, generating strong concerns in the software industry. Prior research has shown that lack of belonging is associated with higher levels of burnout among software developers, while a sense of belonging is linked to resilience, job satisfaction, engagement, and well-being. In this paper, we revisit recent studies on belongingness in software development teams, including proprietary software organizations and open-source software communities, to offer evidence-based guidelines for cultivating belongingness and reducing developer burnout. We summarize characteristics of belongingness, such as trust, acceptance, value recognition, friendship, membership, mutual support, and being known by others, as well as factors associated with belongingness, including recognition, psychological safety, intrinsic motivation, English confidence, tenure, gender, and cultural power distance. Based on these findings, we propose practical guidelines for leaders and communities, including timely and consistent recognition, transparent promotion rules, inclusive benefits and initiatives, intentional connections through collaborative tools, blameless postmortems, optional in-person opportunities, informal newcomer gatherings, and continuous monitoring of belongingness and burnout. These guidelines can help software organizations and open-source communities foster healthier, more inclusive environments that support developer well-being.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2026

Thinking Less, Trusting More: GenAI's Impacts on Students' Cognitive Habits

Objectives: When students use generative AI in coursework, what are its persistent effects on their intellectual development? We investigate (RQ1-How) how students' trust in and routine use of genAI affect their cognitive engagement habits in STEM coursework, and (RQ2-Who) which students are particularly vulnerable to cognitive disengagement. Method: Drawing on dual-process, cognitive offloading, and automation bias theories, we developed a statistical model explaining how and to what extent students' trust-driven routine genAI use affected their cognitive engagement -- specifically, reflection, the need for understanding, and critical thinking in coursework, and how these effects differed across students' cognitive styles. We empirically evaluated this model using Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling on survey data from 299 STEM students across five North American universities. Results: Students who trusted and routinely used genAI reported significantly lower cognitive engagement. Unexpectedly, students with higher technophilic motivations, risk tolerance, and computer self-efficacy -- traits often celebrated in STEM -- were more prone to these effects. Interestingly, students' prior experience with genAI or academia did not protect them from cognitively disengaging. Implications: Our findings suggest a potential cognitive debt cycle where routine genAI use weakens students' intellectual habits, potentially driving and escalating over-reliance. This poses challenges for curricula and genAI system design, requiring interventions that actively support cognitive engagement.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2026

To Copilot and Beyond: 22 AI Systems Developers Want Built

Developers spend roughly one-tenth of their workday writing code, yet most AI tooling targets that fraction. This paper asks what should be built for the rest. We surveyed 860 Microsoft developers to understand where they want AI support, and where they want it to stay out. Using a human-in-the-loop, multi-model council-based thematic analysis, we identify 22 AI systems that developers want built across five task categories. For each, we describe the problem it solves, what makes it hard to build, and the constraints developers place on its behavior. Our findings point to a growing right-shift burden in AI-assisted development: developers wanted systems that embed quality signals earlier in their workflow to keep pace with accelerating code generation, while enforcing explicit authority scoping, provenance, uncertainty signaling, and least-privilege access throughout. This tension reveals a pattern we call "bounded delegation": developers wanted AI to absorb the assembly work surrounding their craft, never the craft itself. That boundary tracks where they locate professional identity, suggesting that the value of AI tooling may lie as much in where and how precisely it stops as in what it does.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2026

The Fast and Spurious: Developer Productivity with GenAI

Generative AI (GenAI) tools are increasingly being adopted in software development as productivity aids, since there is evidence that GenAI tools can improve individual aspects of productivity. However, productivity is multidimensional; accelerating one aspect of work may simply shift effort to another. In this paper, we investigate how GenAI adoption affects different dimensions of developer productivity. We surveyed 415 software practitioners to understand how they perceive productivity changes associated with AI adoption, using the SPACE framework (Satisfaction and well-being, Performance, Activity, Communication and collaboration, and Efficiency and flow). Our results reveal systematic redistribution of effort across SPACE dimensions. While frequent GenAI users reported faster task completion and higher output volume, these gains were offset by increased code review burden, persistent cognitive load from output verification, and unchanged collaboration patterns. We further provide an empirical mapping between the challenges perceived by developers and potential strategies to mitigate them. Overall, our findings suggest that, at the current stage of GenAI adoption, perceived productivity gains may be spurious -- surface-level acceleration, often accompanied by redistributed effort and hidden costs.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2026

When Domains Collide: An Activity Theory Exploration of Cross-Disciplinary Collaboration

Background: Software development teams are increasingly diverse, embedded, and cross-disciplinary. Domain experts (DEs) from different disciplines collaborate with professional software developers (SDEs), bringing complementary expertise in creating and maintaining complex production software. However, contested expectations, divergent problem-solving perspectives, and conflicting priorities lead to friction. Aims: This study aims to investigate the dynamics of emerging collaboration of cross-disciplinary software development (CDSD) by exploring the expectations held by DEs and SDEs and understanding how these frictions manifest in practice. Method: We utilize Activity Theory (AT), a well-established socio-technical framework, as an analytical lens in a grounded, empirical investigation, conducted through a mixed-method study involving 24 interviews (12 DEs and 12 SDEs) and a large-scale validation survey with 293 participants (161 DEs and 132 SDEs). Results: We conceptualize and empirically ground the CDSD dynamics. We identified eight expectations held by SDEs and six by DEs. By mapping these expectations to AT components, we revealed 21 frictions in CDSD and illustrated where and how they arise. Conclusions: This study offers a theoretical lens for understanding the dynamics and frictions in CDSD and provides actionable insights for future research, practitioners, and infrastructure design.

cs.SE↗