Search

Recently, there has been growing attention on behalf of both academic and practice communities towards the ability of Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems to operate responsibly and ethically. As a result, a plethora of frameworks and guidelines have appeared to support practitioners in implementing Trustworthy AI applications (TAI). However, little research has been done to investigate whether such frameworks are being used and how. In this work, we study the vision AI practitioners have on TAI principles, how they address them, and what they would like to have - in terms of tools, knowledge, or guidelines - when they attempt to incorporate such principles into the systems they develop. Through a survey and semi-structured interviews, we systematically investigated practitioners' challenges and needs in developing TAI systems. Based on these practical findings, we highlight recommendations to help AI practitioners develop Trustworthy AI applications.

Mixed and multi methods research is often used in software engineering, but researchers outside of the social or human sciences often lack experience when using these designs. This paper provides guidelines and advice on how to design mixed and multi method research, and to encourage the intentional, rigourous, and innovative use of mixed methods in software engineering. It also presents key characteristics of core mixed method research designs. Through a number of fictitious but recognizable software engineering research scenarios and personas of prototypical researchers, we showcase how to choose suitable designs and consider the inevitable tradeoffs any design choice leads to. We furnish the paper with recommended best practices and several antipatterns that illustrate what to avoid in mixed and multi method research., Comment: 21 pages, 6 figures

In the ever-expanding landscape of Artificial Intelligence (AI), where innovation thrives and new products and services are continuously being delivered, ensuring that AI systems are designed and developed responsibly throughout their entire lifecycle is crucial. To this end, several AI ethics principles and guidelines have been issued to which AI systems should conform. Nevertheless, relying solely on high-level AI ethics principles is far from sufficient to ensure the responsible engineering of AI systems. In this field, AI professionals often navigate by sight. Indeed, while recommendations promoting Trustworthy AI (TAI) exist, these are often high-level statements that are difficult to translate into concrete implementation strategies. There is a significant gap between high-level AI ethics principles and low-level concrete practices for AI professionals. To address this challenge, our work presents an experience report where we develop a novel holistic framework for Trustworthy AI - designed to bridge the gap between theory and practice - and report insights from its application in an industrial case study. The framework is built on the result of a systematic review of the state of the practice, a survey, and think-aloud interviews with 34 AI practitioners. The framework, unlike most of those already in the literature, is designed to provide actionable guidelines and tools to support different types of stakeholders throughout the entire Software Development Life Cycle (SDLC). Our goal is to empower AI professionals to confidently navigate the ethical dimensions of TAI through practical insights, ensuring that the vast potential of AI is exploited responsibly for the benefit of society as a whole.

[Background] Hackathons are increasingly gaining prominence in Software Engineering (SE) education, lauded for their ability to elevate students' skill sets. [Objective] This paper investigates whether hackathons can impact the motivation of SE students. [Method] We conducted an evaluative case study assessing students' motivations before and after a hackathon, combining quantitative analysis using the Academic Motivation Scale (AMS) and qualitative coding of open-ended responses. [Results] Pre-hackathon findings reveal a diverse range of motivations with an overall acceptance, while post-hackathon responses highlight no statistically significant shift in participants' perceptions. Qualitative findings uncovered themes related to networking, team dynamics, and skill development. From a practical perspective, our findings highlight the potential of hackathons to impact participants' motivation. [Conclusion] While our study enhances the comprehension of hackathons as a motivational tool, it also underscores the need for further exploration of psychometric dimensions in SE educational research.

[Context] Applying design principles has long been acknowledged as beneficial for understanding and maintainability in traditional software projects. These benefits may similarly hold for Machine Learning (ML) projects, which involve iterative experimentation with data, models, and algorithms. However, ML components are often developed by data scientists with diverse educational backgrounds, potentially resulting in code that doesn't adhere to software design best practices. [Goal] In order to better understand this phenomenon, we investigated the impact of the SOLID design principles on ML code understanding. [Method] We conducted a controlled experiment with three independent trials involving 100 data scientists. We restructured real industrial ML code that did not use SOLID principles. Within each trial, one group was presented with the original ML code, while the other was presented with ML code incorporating SOLID principles. Participants of both groups were asked to analyze the code and fill out a questionnaire that included both open-ended and closed-ended questions on their understanding. [Results] The study results provide statistically significant evidence that the adoption of the SOLID design principles can improve code understanding within the realm of ML projects. [Conclusion] We put forward that software engineering design principles should be spread within the data science community and considered for enhancing the maintainability of ML code.