arXiv subjects

Christian Bird

Publications and source records attributed to Christian Bird.

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

"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

(When) Should a Software Factory be Lights-off? Benchmarking Code Review Agents on Bug Detection

With the advances of coding agents, software developers are spending more time reviewing code than writing code. As human review velocity falls behind agentic code generation, it is tempting to build automated review agents towards a future of "lights-off" software factory with little to no human supervision. To assess the practicality of such a fully autonomous software factory, we construct CRBugBench, a new benchmark that evaluates whether review agents detect human-verified bugs. We build a data pipeline that mines bugs from repository history, and pair each bug with its introducing PR to form a review task. CRBugBench consists of 1,000 review tasks across 98 open-source GitHub repositories, and 800 additional tasks from proprietary industry repositories at one large company. We then use the benchmark to study agent review quality: We found that SOTA review agents do well: the best (claude-opus-5 with copilot-cli) catches 71.9% of bugs within its top-5 comments, up from 47.7% (opus-4.6) in five months of model evolution. Yet agents remain less effective on complex changes and bugs requiring non-local reasoning, with sharp performance drops on proprietary industry repositories where project context is more often needed. To improve bug detection, we found scaling compute helps most through prompt changes: exploration-nudging prompts gain up to 5.8% performance at 10% higher cost. From these findings, we derive concrete guidance for developers to adopt review agents - scaling review effort to PR complexity, steering agents by project priorities, supplying repository knowledge, dispatching models by PR characteristics, and monitoring quality as models evolve.

cs.SE↗

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

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

Good Vibrations? A Qualitative Study of Co-Creation, Communication, Flow, and Trust in Vibe Coding

Vibe coding, a term coined by Andrej Karpathy in February 2025, has quickly become a compelling and controversial natural language programming paradigm in AI-assisted software development. Centered on iterative co-design with an AI assistant, vibe coding emphasizes flow and experimentation over strict upfront specification. While initial studies have begun to explore this paradigm, most focus on analyzing code artifacts or proposing theories with limited empirical backing. There remains a need for a grounded understanding of vibe coding as it is perceived and experienced by developers. We present the first systematic qualitative investigation of vibe coding perceptions and practice. Drawing on over 190,000 words from semi-structured interviews, Reddit threads, and LinkedIn posts, we characterize what vibe coding is, why and how developers use it, where it breaks down, and which emerging practices aim to support it. We propose a qualitatively grounded theory of vibe coding centered on conversational interaction with AI, co-creation, and developer flow and joy. We find that AI trust regulates movement along a continuum from delegation to co-creation and supports the developer experience by sustaining flow. We surface recurring pain points and risks in areas including specification, reliability, debugging, latency, code review burden, and collaboration. We also present best practices that have been discovered and shared to mitigate these challenges. We conclude with implications for the future of AI dev tools and directions for researchers investigating vibe coding.

cs.SE↗

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

AI Where It Matters: Where, Why, and How Developers Want AI Support in Daily Work

Generative AI is reshaping software work, yet we lack clear guidance on where developers most need support and how to design it responsibly. We report a large-scale, mixed-methods study of N=860 developers examining where, why, and how they seek or limit AI help across SE tasks. Using cognitive appraisal theory, we provide the first empirically validated mapping of developers' task appraisals to AI adoption patterns and Responsible AI (RAI) priorities. Appraisals predict AI openness and use, revealing distinct patterns: strong current use and demand for improvement in core work (e.g., coding, testing); high demand to reduce toil (e.g., documentation, operations); and clear limits for identity- and relationship-centric work (e.g., mentoring). RAI priorities vary by context: reliability and security for systems-facing tasks; transparency, alignment, and steerability to maintain control; and fairness and inclusiveness for human-facing work. Our results offer concrete, contextual guidance for delivering AI where it matters to developers and their work.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2025

"Maybe We Need Some More Examples:" Individual and Team Drivers of Developer GenAI Tool Use

Despite the widespread availability of generative AI tools in software engineering, developer adoption remains uneven. This unevenness is problematic because it hampers productivity efforts, frustrates management's expectations, and creates uncertainty around the future roles of developers. Through paired interviews with 54 developers across 27 teams -- one frequent and one infrequent user per team -- we demonstrate that differences in usage result primarily from how developers perceive the tool (as a collaborator vs. feature), their engagement approach (experimental vs. conservative), and how they respond when encountering challenges (with adaptive persistence vs. quick abandonment). Our findings imply that widespread organizational expectations for rapid productivity gains without sufficient investment in learning support creates a "Productivity Pressure Paradox," undermining the very productivity benefits that motivate adoption.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2024

Beyond the Comfort Zone: Emerging Solutions to Overcome Challenges in Integrating LLMs into Software Products

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly embedded into software products across diverse industries, enhancing user experiences, but at the same time introducing numerous challenges for developers. Unique characteristics of LLMs force developers, who are accustomed to traditional software development and evaluation, out of their comfort zones as the LLM components shatter standard assumptions about software systems. This study explores the emerging solutions that software developers are adopting to navigate the encountered challenges. Leveraging a mixed-method research, including 26 interviews and a survey with 332 responses, the study identifies 19 emerging solutions regarding quality assurance that practitioners across several product teams at Microsoft are exploring. The findings provide valuable insights that can guide the development and evaluation of LLM-based products more broadly in the face of these challenges.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2024

GEMS: Generative Expert Metric System through Iterative Prompt Priming

Across domains, metrics and measurements are fundamental to identifying challenges, informing decisions, and resolving conflicts. Despite the abundance of data available in this information age, not only can it be challenging for a single expert to work across multi-disciplinary data, but non-experts can also find it unintuitive to create effective measures or transform theories into context-specific metrics that are chosen appropriately. This technical report addresses this challenge by examining software communities within large software corporations, where different measures are used as proxies to locate counterparts within the organization to transfer tacit knowledge. We propose a prompt-engineering framework inspired by neural activities, demonstrating that generative models can extract and summarize theories and perform basic reasoning, thereby transforming concepts into context-aware metrics to support software communities given software repository data. While this research zoomed in on software communities, we believe the framework's applicability extends across various fields, showcasing expert-theory-inspired metrics that aid in triaging complex challenges.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2024

Can GPT-4 Replicate Empirical Software Engineering Research?

Empirical software engineering research on production systems has brought forth a better understanding of the software engineering process for practitioners and researchers alike. However, only a small subset of production systems is studied, limiting the impact of this research. While software engineering practitioners could benefit from replicating research on their own data, this poses its own set of challenges, since performing replications requires a deep understanding of research methodologies and subtle nuances in software engineering data. Given that large language models (LLMs), such as GPT-4, show promise in tackling both software engineering- and science-related tasks, these models could help replicate and thus democratize empirical software engineering research. In this paper, we examine GPT-4's abilities to perform replications of empirical software engineering research on new data. We study their ability to surface assumptions made in empirical software engineering research methodologies, as well as their ability to plan and generate code for analysis pipelines on seven empirical software engineering papers. We perform a user study with 14 participants with software engineering research expertise, who evaluate GPT-4-generated assumptions and analysis plans (i.e., a list of module specifications) from the papers. We find that GPT-4 is able to surface correct assumptions, but struggles to generate ones that apply common knowledge about software engineering data. In a manual analysis of the generated code, we find that the GPT-4-generated code contains correct high-level logic, given a subset of the methodology. However, the code contains many small implementation-level errors, reflecting a lack of software engineering knowledge. Our findings have implications for leveraging LLMs for software engineering research as well as practitioner data scientists in software teams.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2024

Studying LLM Performance on Closed- and Open-source Data

Large Language models (LLMs) are finding wide use in software engineering practice. These models are extremely data-hungry, and are largely trained on open-source (OSS) code distributed with permissive licenses. In terms of actual use however, a great deal of software development still occurs in the for-profit/proprietary sphere, where the code under development is not, and never has been, in the public domain; thus, many developers, do their work, and use LLMs, in settings where the models may not be as familiar with the code under development. In such settings, do LLMs work as well as they do for OSS code? If not, what are the differences? When performance differs, what are the possible causes, and are there work-arounds? In this paper, we examine this issue using proprietary, closed-source software data from Microsoft, where most proprietary code is in C# and C++. We find that performance for C# changes little from OSS --> proprietary code, but does significantly reduce for C++; we find that this difference is attributable to differences in identifiers. We also find that some performance degradation, in some cases, can be ameliorated efficiently by in-context learning.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2023

Objectives and Key Results in Software Teams: Challenges, Opportunities and Impact on Development

Building software, like building almost anything, requires people to understand a common goal and work together towards it. In large software companies, a VP or Director will have an idea or goal and it is often the job of middle management to distill that lofty, general idea into manageable, finite units of work. How do organizations do this hard work of setting and measuring progress towards goals? To understand this question, we undertook a mixed methods approach to studying goal setting, management dissemination of goals, goal tracking and ultimately software delivery at a large multi-national software company. Semi-structured interviews with 47 participants were analyzed and used to develop a survey which was deployed to a multi-national team of over 4,000 engineers. The 512 responses were analyzed using thematic analysis, linear regressions and hypothesis testing, and found that tracking, measuring and setting goals is hard work, regardless of tools used. Middle management seems to be a critical component of the translation of lofty goals to actionable work items. In addition, attitudes and beliefs of engineers are critical to the success of any goal setting framework. Based on this research, we make recommendations on how to improve the goal setting and OKR process in software organizations: invest in the data pipeline, increase transparency, improve communication, promote learning communities, and a structured roll out of OKRs.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2023

Using Large-scale Heterogeneous Graph Representation Learning for Code Review Recommendations at Microsoft

Code review is an integral part of any mature software development process, and identifying the best reviewer for a code change is a well-accepted problem within the software engineering community. Selecting a reviewer who lacks expertise and understanding can slow development or result in more defects. To date, most reviewer recommendation systems rely primarily on historical file change and review information; those who changed or reviewed a file in the past are the best positioned to review in the future. We posit that while these approaches are able to identify and suggest qualified reviewers, they may be blind to reviewers who have the needed expertise and have simply never interacted with the changed files before. Fortunately, at Microsoft, we have a wealth of work artifacts across many repositories that can yield valuable information about our developers. To address the aforementioned problem, we present CORAL, a novel approach to reviewer recommendation that leverages a socio-technical graph built from the rich set of entities (developers, repositories, files, pull requests (PRs), work items, etc.) and their relationships in modern source code management systems. We employ a graph convolutional neural network on this graph and train it on two and a half years of history on 332 repositories within Microsoft. We show that CORAL is able to model the manual history of reviewer selection remarkably well. Further, based on an extensive user study, we demonstrate that this approach identifies relevant and qualified reviewers who traditional reviewer recommenders miss, and that these developers desire to be included in the review process. Finally, we find that "classical" reviewer recommendation systems perform better on smaller (in terms of developers) software projects while CORAL excels on larger projects, suggesting that there is "no one model to rule them all."

cs.SE↗

arXiv2022

Program Merge Conflict Resolution via Neural Transformers

Collaborative software development is an integral part of the modern software development life cycle, essential to the success of large-scale software projects. When multiple developers make concurrent changes around the same lines of code, a merge conflict may occur. Such conflicts stall pull requests and continuous integration pipelines for hours to several days, seriously hurting developer productivity. To address this problem, we introduce MergeBERT, a novel neural program merge framework based on token-level three-way differencing and a transformer encoder model. By exploiting the restricted nature of merge conflict resolutions, we reformulate the task of generating the resolution sequence as a classification task over a set of primitive merge patterns extracted from real-world merge commit data. Our model achieves 63-68% accuracy for merge resolution synthesis, yielding nearly a 3x performance improvement over existing semi-structured, and 2x improvement over neural program merge tools. Finally, we demonstrate that MergeBERT is sufficiently flexible to work with source code files in Java, JavaScript, TypeScript, and C# programming languages. To measure the practical use of MergeBERT, we conduct a user study to evaluate MergeBERT suggestions with 25 developers from large OSS projects on 122 real-world conflicts they encountered. Results suggest that in practice, MergeBERT resolutions would be accepted at a higher rate than estimated by automatic metrics for precision and accuracy. Additionally, we use participant feedback to identify future avenues for improvement of MergeBERT.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2021

ConE: A Concurrent Edit Detection Tool for Large Scale Software Development

Modern, complex software systems are being continuously extended and adjusted. The developers responsible for this may come from different teams or organizations, and may be distributed over the world. This may make it difficult to keep track of what other developers are doing, which may result in multiple developers concurrently editing the same code areas. This, in turn, may lead to hard-to-merge changes or even merge conflicts, logical bugs that are difficult to detect, duplication of work, and wasted developer productivity. To address this, we explore the extent of this problem in the pull request based software development model. We study half a year of changes made to six large repositories in Microsoft in which at least 1,000 pull requests are created each month. We find that files concurrently edited in different pull requests are more likely to introduce bugs. Motivated by these findings, we design, implement, and deploy a service named ConE (Concurrent Edit Detector) that proactively detects pull requests containing concurrent edits, to help mitigate the problems caused by them. ConE has been designed to scale, and to minimize false alarms while still flagging relevant concurrently edited files. Key concepts of ConE include the detection of the Extent of Overlap between pull requests, and the identification of Rarely Concurrently Edited Files. To evaluate ConE, we report on its operational deployment on 234 repositories inside Microsoft. ConE assessed 26,000 pull requests and made 775 recommendations about conflicting changes, which were rated as useful in over 70% (554) of the cases. From interviews with 48 users we learned that they believed ConE would save time in conflict resolution and avoiding duplicate work, and that over 90% intend to keep using the service on a daily basis.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2021

A Tale of Two Cities: Software Developers Working from Home During the COVID-19 Pandemic

The COVID-19 pandemic has shaken the world to its core and has provoked an overnight exodus of developers that normally worked in an office setting to working from home. The magnitude of this shift and the factors that have accompanied this new unplanned work setting go beyond what the software engineering community has previously understood to be remote work. To find out how developers and their productivity were affected, we distributed two surveys (with a combined total of 3,634 responses that answered all required questions) -- weeks apart to understand the presence and prevalence of the benefits, challenges, and opportunities to improve this special circumstance of remote work. From our thematic qualitative analysis and statistical quantitative analysis, we find that there is a dichotomy of developer experiences influenced by many different factors (that for some are a benefit, while for others a challenge). For example, a benefit for some was being close to family members but for others having family members share their working space and interrupting their focus, was a challenge. Our surveys led to powerful narratives from respondents and revealed the scale at which these experiences exist to provide insights as to how the future of (pandemic) remote work can evolve.

cs.SE↗