Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2506.12669

Towards Lean Research Inception: Assessing Practical Relevance of Formulated Research Problems

Anrafel Fernandes Pereira·Marcos Kalinowski·Maria Teresa Baldassarre·Jürgen Börstler·Nauman bin Ali·Daniel Mendez
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

[Context] The lack of practical relevance in many Software Engineering (SE) research contributions is often rooted in oversimplified views of industrial practice, weak industry connections, and poorly defined research problems. Clear criteria for evaluating SE research problems can help align their value, feasibility, and applicability with industrial needs. [Goal] In this paper, we introduce the Lean Research Inception (LRI) framework, designed to support the formulation and assessment of practically relevant research problems in SE. We describe its initial evaluation strategy conducted in a workshop with a network of SE researchers experienced in industry-academia collaboration and report the evaluation of its three assessment criteria (valuable, feasible, and applicable) regarding their importance in assessing practical relevance. [Method] We applied LRI retroactively to a published research paper, engaging workshop participants in discussing and assessing the research problem by applying the proposed criteria using a semantic differential scale. Participants provided feedback on the criteria's importance and completeness, drawn from their own experiences in industry-academia collaboration. [Results] The findings reveal an overall agreement on the importance of the three criteria - valuable (83.3%), feasible (76.2%), and applicable (73.8%) - for aligning research problems with industrial needs. Qualitative feedback suggested adjustments in terminology with a clearer distinction between feasible and applicable, and refinements for valuable by more clearly considering business value, ROI, and originality. [Conclusion] While LRI constitutes ongoing research and requires further evaluation, our results strengthen our confidence that the three criteria applied using the semantic differential scale can already help the community assess the practical relevance of SE research problems.

Explore related subjects

cs.SE

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Anrafel Fernandes Pereira, Marcos Kalinowski, Maria Teresa Baldassarre, Jürgen Börstler, Nauman bin Ali, Daniel Mendez. 2025-06-15. Towards Lean Research Inception: Assessing Practical Relevance of Formulated Research Problems. https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.12669

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Is Vibe Coding Safe? Benchmarking Vulnerability of Agent-Generated Code in Real-World Tasks

Vibe coding is a new software development paradigm in which human engineers prompt a large language model (LLM) agent to complete complex coding tasks with little supervision. Although vibe coding is increasingly adopted, is the generated code really safe to deploy in production? To investigate this question, we propose SUSVIBES, a benchmark consisting of 186 feature-request software engineering tasks from real-world open-source projects, for which, human programmers committed vulnerable implementations. We evaluate 12 widely used coding agentic settings with frontier models on the benchmark. Disturbingly, all agents perform poorly in terms of software security. Although 57% of the solutions from SWE-Agent with Claude 4 Sonnet are functionally correct, only 11.8% are secure. Further experiments demonstrate that preliminary security strategies, such as augmenting the feature request with vulnerability hints, cannot mitigate these security issues. Our findings raise serious concerns about the widespread adoption of vibe coding, particularly in security-sensitive applications. The code and dataset are available at https://github.com/LeiLiLab/susvibes. The leaderboard is at https://leililab.github.io/susvibes-leaderboard.

cs.SE↗
arXiv2026

Why3-py: A Tool for Formal Verification of Hypothesis Testing and Meta-Analysis in Python

The reproducibility crisis in scientific research has received widespread recognition, thereby increasing the importance of meta-analyses that integrate statistical analyses from multiple studies. However, statistical methods often have ambiguous and implicit underlying assumptions, which can lead to their erroneous applications and interpretations. To address this issue, we propose a formal verification framework for statistical Python programs. Specifically, we present Why3-py, a Python front-end for the Why3 verification platform that transforms Python code into verification-oriented WhyML representations, addressing the challenges arising from Python's dynamic typing and runtime polymorphism. Furthermore, we extend the StatWhy tool to support the verification of meta-analysis methods. These tools enable meta-analysts to identify overlooked assumptions and misuse of analyses, and to verify the correct use of hypothesis testing and meta-analysis methods in Python code.

cs.SE↗
arXiv2026

What is the Difference Between Me and You? Benchmarking the Quality Gap Between Human-Written and AI-Generated Code

AI coding assistants are becoming co-authors of production software, yet their evaluation centers on functional correctness, leaving open whether their code differs from human code in the quality dimensions dominating lifecycle cost. We compare human-written and AI-generated code at scale: 787,562 function pairs across Python, Java, and C, each human function mined from open-source repositories paired with implementations generated from its docstring by three AI assistants (OpenAI GPT models, DeepSeek-Coder, Qwen2.5-Coder). We characterize structural complexity and statistical naturalness, and map static-analysis findings onto Orthogonal Defect Classification for defects and the Common Weakness Enumeration for vulnerabilities, making authors and languages directly comparable. AI-generated code is structurally compressed and stylistically templated: roughly half the size and branching of human code, clustering apart at the style level. Defect profiles differ in kind: human code concentrates issues of mature codebases, AI code repetitive boilerplate; security is language-dependent, with LLMs producing more, and more severe, findings in Python and Java but fewer high-severity memory-safety findings than humans in C. Once size is controlled for, complexity metrics carry little signal, while naturalness separates authors. Finally, we release CQBench, a benchmark of 27,346 issue-prone tasks with baselines and an evaluation pipeline for quality assurance and security testing.

cs.SE↗