ArXiv TLDR

Taking a Pulse on How Generative AI is Reshaping the Software Engineering Research Landscape

🐦 Tweet
2604.11184

Bianca Trinkenreich, Fabio Calefato, Kelly Blincoe, Viggo Tellefsen Wivestad, Antonio Pedro Santos Alves + 6 more

cs.SEcs.AI

TLDR

A survey of 457 SE researchers reveals widespread GenAI use, primarily for writing, with concerns about trust, correctness, and governance.

Key contributions

  • Surveyed 457 SE researchers on GenAI adoption, practices, benefits, and challenges in their work.
  • Found widespread GenAI use, mainly for writing and early-stage tasks, with human oversight for methods.
  • Identified perceived productivity gains alongside concerns about trust, correctness, bias, and regulatory uncertainty.
  • Proposed taxonomies for GenAI use cases, risks, mitigation strategies, and governance needs in SE research.

Why it matters

This paper provides the first large-scale empirical baseline on how Generative AI is being adopted and perceived by software engineering researchers. Its findings are crucial for guiding responsible integration of GenAI into academic practices and informing future governance.

Original Abstract

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.

📬 Weekly AI Paper Digest

Get the top 10 AI/ML arXiv papers from the week — summarized, scored, and delivered to your inbox every Monday.