Searcharxiv⌕ Search

arXiv subjects

Lekshmi Murali Rani

Publications and source records attributed to Lekshmi Murali Rani.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

Bridging the Socio-Emotional Gap: The Functional Dimension of Human-AI Collaboration for Software Engineering

As GenAI models are adopted to support software engineers and their development teams, understanding effective human-AI collaboration (HAIC) is increasingly important. Socio-emotional intelligence (SEI) enhances collaboration among human teammates, but its role in HAIC remains unclear. Current AI systems lack SEI capabilities that humans bring to teamwork, creating a potential gap in collaborative dynamics. In this study, we investigate how software practitioners perceive the socio-emotional gap in HAIC and what capabilities AI systems require for effective collaboration. Through semi-structured interviews with 10 practitioners, we examine how they think about collaborating with human versus AI teammates, focusing on their SEI expectations and the AI capabilities they envision. Results indicate that practitioners currently view AI models as intellectual teammates rather than social partners and expect fewer SEI attributes from them than from human teammates. However, they see the socio-emotional gap not as AIs failure to exhibit SEI traits, but as a functional gap in collaborative capabilities (AIs inability to negotiate responsibilities, adapt contextually, or maintain sustained partnerships). We introduce the concept of functional equivalents: technical capabilities (internal cognition, contextual intelligence, adaptive learning, and collaborative intelligence) that achieve collaborative outcomes comparable to human SEI attributes. Our findings suggest that effective collaboration with AI for SE tasks may benefit from functional design rather than replicating human SEI traits for SE tasks, thereby redefining collaboration as functional alignment.

cs.SE↗

AI for Requirements Engineering: Industry adoption and Practitioner perspectives

The integration of AI for Requirements Engineering (RE) presents significant benefits but also poses real challenges. Although RE is fundamental to software engineering, limited research has examined AI adoption in RE. We surveyed 55 software practitioners to map AI usage across four RE phases: Elicitation, Analysis, Specification, and Validation, and four approaches for decision making: human-only decisions, AI validation, Human AI Collaboration (HAIC), and full AI automation. Participants also shared their perceptions, challenges, and opportunities when applying AI for RE tasks. Our data show that 58.2% of respondents already use AI in RE, and 69.1% view its impact as positive or very positive. HAIC dominates practice, accounting for 54.4% of all RE techniques, while full AI automation remains minimal at 5.4%. Passive AI validation (4.4 to 6.2%) lags even further behind, indicating that practitioners value AI's active support over passive oversight. These findings suggest that AI is most effective when positioned as a collaborative partner rather than a replacement for human expertise. It also highlights the need for RE-specific HAIC frameworks along with robust and responsible AI governance as AI adoption in RE grows.

cs.SE↗

Extending Behavioral Software Engineering: Decision-Making and Collaboration in Human-AI Teams for Responsible Software Engineering

The study of behavioral and social dimensions of software engineering (SE) tasks characterizes behavioral software engineering (BSE);however, the increasing significance of human-AI collaboration (HAIC) brings new directions in BSE by presenting new challenges and opportunities. This PhD research focuses on decision-making (DM) for SE tasks and collaboration within human-AI teams, aiming to promote responsible software engineering through a cognitive partnership between humans and AI. The goal of the research is to identify the challenges and nuances in HAIC from a cognitive perspective, design and optimize collaboration/partnership (human-AI team) that enhance collective intelligence and promote better, responsible DM in SE through human-centered approaches. The research addresses HAIC and its impact on individual, team, and organizational level aspects of BSE.

cs.SE↗

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

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.

cs.SE↗