human-computer interaction

Can Large Language Models Serve as Data Analysts? A Multi-Agent Assisted Approach for Qualitative Data Analysis

Context: Manual qualitative data analysis is time-intensive and can compromise validity and replicability, affecting analysis design, implementation, and reporting. Large Language Models (LLMs) enable human-bot collaboration in Software Engineering (SE), but their potential for qualitative data analysis in SE remains largely unexplored. Objective: The objective of this study is to design and develop an LLM-based multi-agent system that synergizes human decision support with AI to automate various qualitative data analysis approaches. Methods: We used LLM-based multi-agents systems to assist the qualitative data analysis process, deploying 27 agents, each responsible for a specific task, such as text summarization, initial code generation, and extracting themes and patterns. Results: The main findings are: (1) the LLM-based multi-agent system accelerates the qualitative data analysis process, (2) the system effectively automates tasks such as text summarization, initial code generation, and theme extraction, and (3) the publicly accessible code facilitates validation and further evaluation. Conclusion: The proposed LLM-based multi-agent system automates qualitative data analysis process, creating opportunities for researchers and practitioners. Future improvements focus on enhancing multilingual performance and integrating continuous expert feedback. The source code of proposed system and system details can be found here: https://github.com/GPT-Laboratory/Qualitative-Analysis-with-an-LLM-Based-Agentts

Engineering a Governance-Aware AI Sandbox: Design, Implementation, and Lessons Learned

Collaborative AI experimentation in industry-academia requires environments that support rapid trials while maintaining controlled access, organisational isolation, and traceable workflows. Although interest in AI sandboxes is increasing, practical guidance on designing and building governance-aware experimentation platforms remains limited. This work designs and operationalizes a governance-aware, multi-tenant AI sandbox that supports structured experimentation and produces reusable evaluation evidence across stakeholders. The sandbox was developed in an industry-academia ecosystem using iteratively validated requirements gathered from industrial partners. The solution adopts a layered reference architecture that separates a multi-tenant presentation layer from a backend control plane and isolates execution and data management concerns into dedicated layers. The sandbox supports governed onboarding, project-based collaboration, controlled access to AI services, and traceable experimentation through approval workflows and audit logging. By structuring experiment context and governance decisions as persistent records, the sandbox enables evaluation evidence to be reused and compared across projects and stakeholders. The development experience yields lessons learned and practical considerations that inform deployment and future evolution of governance-aware sandbox platforms.

TERE4AI: A Knowledge Graph-Based Tool for Generating EU AI Act Compliant Requirements

AI Sandbox: Technical Report

Collaborative AI experimentation across industry and academia requires platforms that enable rapid prototyping while preserving controlled access, tenant separation, and transparent workflows. Despite growing interest in AI sandboxes, there is still limited practical guidance on how to design and implement platforms that integrate experimentation capabilities with governance requirements. This work presents the design and implementation of a governance-aware, multi-tenant AI sandbox for structured experimentation and the generation of reusable evaluation evidence across projects and stakeholder groups. The sandbox was developed within an industry-academia collaboration based on requirements that were iteratively refined with industrial partners. Its reference architecture separates the multi-tenant user interface from the backend control plane and places execution and data-management functions in dedicated layers. The platform supports governed user onboarding, project-centered collaboration, managed access to AI services, approval workflows, audit logging, and traceable experimentation. Experiment configurations, contextual information, and governance decisions are stored as persistent records, allowing evidence and outcomes to be compared and reused across projects. The development process provides practical lessons for deploying and extending governance-aware AI sandbox platforms in collaborative research and industrial environments.

LLM-Based Multi-Agent Systems for Code Generation: A Multi-Vocal Literature Review

Large Language Models (LLMs) have enabled multi-agent systems to perform autonomous code generation for complex tasks. Despite the recent growth in research and industrial applications in this area, there is little work on synthesizing evidence from both academic and industrial sources to capture the current state of research on LLM-based multi-agent systems for code generation. To this end, we conducted a Multi-Vocal Literature Review (MLR), combining insights from both academia and industry, including peer-reviewed studies and grey literature. The aim of this study is to systematically synthesize and analyze existing knowledge on LLM-based multi-agent systems for code generation. Specifically, the review examines the motivations for their use, employed benchmarks and models, key challenges, proposed solutions, and potential directions for future research. We selected and reviewed 114 studies, and the key findings are: 1) the identified reasons for adopting multi-agent systems for code generation were classified into nine categories; 2) the models and evaluation benchmarks utilized across the studies were systematically analyzed to provide a structured overview of commonly adopted LLM configurations and assessment practices; 3) the reported challenges and corresponding solutions were synthesized into six main categories and 26 subcategories; and 4) future research directions were identified and organized into six main categories and 18 subcategories. The results of this MLR will assist researchers and practitioners in pursuing further studies and supporting the real-world adoption of multi-agent systems in industrial settings.

Agentic Frameworks for Reasoning Tasks: An Empirical Study

Recent advances in agentic frameworks have enabled AI agents to perform complex reasoning and decision-making. However, evidence comparing their reasoning performance, efficiency, and practical suitability remains limited. To address this gap, we empirically evaluate 22 widely used agentic frameworks across three reasoning benchmarks: BBH, GSM8K, and ARC. The frameworks were selected from 1,200 GitHub repositories collected between January 2023 and July 2025 and organized into a taxonomy based on architectural design. We evaluated them under a unified setting, measuring reasoning accuracy, execution time, computational cost, and cross-benchmark consistency. Our results show that 19 of the 22 frameworks completed all three benchmarks. Among these, 12 showed stable performance, with mean accuracy of 74.6-75.9%, execution time of 4-6 seconds per task, and cost of 0.14-0.18 cents per task. Poorer results were mainly caused by orchestration problems rather than reasoning limits. For example, Camel failed to complete BBH after 11 days because of uncontrolled context growth, while Upsonic consumed USD 1,434 in one day because repeated extraction failures triggered costly retries. AutoGen and Mastra also exhausted API quotas through iterative interactions that increased prompt length without improving results. We also found a sharp drop in mathematical reasoning. Mean accuracy on GSM8K was 44.35%, compared with 89.80% on BBH and 89.56% on ARC. Overall, this study provides the first large-scale empirical comparison of agentic frameworks for reasoning-intensive software engineering tasks and shows that framework selection should prioritize orchestration quality, especially memory control, failure handling, and cost management.

Autonomous Agents in Software Development: A Vision Paper

Large Language Models (LLM) and Generative Pre-trained Transformers (GPT), are reshaping the field of Software Engineering (SE). They enable innovative methods for executing many software engineering tasks, including automated code generation, debugging, maintenance, etc. However, only a limited number of existing works have thoroughly explored the potential of GPT agents in SE. This vision paper inquires about the role of GPT-based agents in SE. Our vision is to leverage the capabilities of multiple GPT agents to contribute to SE tasks and to propose an initial road map for future work. We argue that multiple GPT agents can perform creative and demanding tasks far beyond coding and debugging. GPT agents can also do project planning, requirements engineering, and software design. These can be done through high-level descriptions given by the human developer. We have shown in our initial experimental analysis for simple software (e.g., Snake Game, Tic-Tac-Toe, Notepad) that multiple GPT agents can produce high-quality code and document it carefully. We argue that it shows a promise of unforeseen efficiency and will dramatically reduce lead-times. To this end, we intend to expand our efforts to understand how we can scale these autonomous capabilities further.

Examining Privacy and Trust Issues at the Edge of Isomorphic IoT Architectures: Case Liquid AI

The growing domain of liquidity in computing extends its boundaries to include advancements like liquid artificial intelligence (AI). Liquid AI leverages liquid software using isomorphic Internet of Things (IoT) architecture to enhance computation at the edge. This innovation unveils vast opportunities yet also introduces significant challenges, particularly around privacy and trust. We explore the vulnerabilities that might hinder the progression of this technological fusion toward achieving trustworthy AI. Through an intensive examination of the literature, this research highlights the heightened threats to data integrity and stakeholder trust in these evolving ecosystems. Four main challenges: Data collection, Data storage and Access, Data utilization and sharing, and Surveillance and profiling were identified and examined under privacy, and two, Algorithms and decision-making and Security of IoT infrastructure under trust. The concerns are further categorized to highlight their impact on the development of trustworthy AI. The study acknowledges the early state of the field. Consequently, this research navigates through the limited available literature, initiating a pioneering discourse emphasizing fostering a foundation for developing secure and trustworthy Liquid AI environments.

Carbon-Aware Governance Gates: An Architecture for Sustainable GenAI Development

The rapid adoption of Generative AI (GenAI) in the software development life cycle (SDLC) increases computational demand, which can raise the carbon footprint of development activities. At the same time, organizations are increasingly embedding governance mechanisms into GenAI-assisted development to support trust, transparency, and accountability. However, these governance mechanisms introduce additional computational workloads, including repeated inference, regeneration cycles, and expanded validation pipelines, increasing energy use and the carbon footprint of GenAI-assisted development. This paper proposes Carbon-Aware Governance Gates (CAGG), an architectural extension that embeds carbon budgets, energy provenance, and sustainability-aware validation orchestration into human-AI governance layers. CAGG comprises three components: (i) an Energy and Carbon Provenance Ledger, (ii) a Carbon Budget Manager, and (iii) a Green Validation Orchestrator, operationalized through governance policies and reusable design patterns.

Learning to Prefer Reliably: Error-Augmented Emotion Preference Optimization with Calibrated Fusion

Emotion preference learning uses pairwise comparisons between candidate descriptions to align multimodal large language models (MLLMs) with human judgments of open-ended emotion descriptions and to train reward models that capture human emotional preferences. However, conventional pairwise supervision is often sparse, typically providing only a single negative description for each positive description, and therefore offers limited coverage of the diverse ways in which an emotion description can be incorrect. In particular, models may be insufficiently exposed to semantically fluent but emotionally inconsistent descriptions. Beyond this data-level limitation, relying on a single MLLM judge introduces a distinct model-level concern: its judgments can be affected by model-specific biases when interpreting fine-grained or ambiguous multimodal emotional cues. To address these limitations, we propose Error-Augmented Preference Optimization (EAPO), a framework for improving the reliability of MLLM-based emotion preference judgment at both the data and model levels. First, we construct an error-augmented dataset by generating multiple controlled and emotion-aware negative descriptions from each preferred description. We then adapt multiple independent MLLM judges to this richer supervision and aggregate their preference margins using margin-calibrated soft fusion, which maps heterogeneous margins to a common scale before aggregation. Experiments on the MER2026-EmoPrefer Challenge dataset and our error-augmented dataset demonstrate that EAPO improves emotion preference prediction and enhances the robustness of MLLM judges when evaluating fluent descriptions that conflict with the video's multimodal emotional evidence. Our code is available at https://github.com/slash1028/EAPO-EmoPrefer.

Beyond Truth Discovery: A Two-Stage Framework to Assess the Severity of False Claim during Disasters

False information spreads rapidly on social media during disasters and can undermine emergency response efforts, public trust, and crisis communication. Existing research primarily focuses on determining whether social media posts contain false information, but provides limited insight into the specific false claims embedded within posts and the severity of individual false claims. To address the limitations, we propose a two-stage framework to assess the severity of false claims during disasters. In the first stage, we develop a false claim extraction agent that identifies false claims from multimodal social media posts containing text, images, videos, and links. A subsequent verification step validates extracted claims with supporting evidence. In the second stage, we define false claim severity as the combination of two complementary dimensions: believability, which determines the likelihood that a claim will be believed, and harmfulness, which captures the potential consequences if it is believed. Human annotators assess both dimensions to construct a claim-level severity benchmark using false claims extracted from Reddit posts related to hurricanes and wildfires. Building upon this benchmark, we investigate false claim severity assessment as a human-AI alignment problem, evaluating whether models can reproduce human judgments under a shared evaluation rubric rather than merely predicting severity labels. Experiments on the benchmark show that traditional supervised models exhibit limited alignment with human judgments, whereas Large Language Models (LLMs) achieve substantially stronger performance. Among the evaluated strategies, in-context learning consistently achieves the strongest alignment with human judgments, highlighting the importance of human examples and shared decision criteria for severity assessment.

Same Scrutiny, More Time: Eye Tracking Insights into Reviewing LLM-Labelled Code

Modern software development increasingly involves the use of large language models (LLMs) to generate code. Despite their rapid advancement, LLMs remain prone to errors and hallucinations, emphasizing the importance of careful code inspection. However, in practice, developers' trust in LLM-generated code and their willingness to review it thoroughly may differ from these recommendations. How developers actually behave when reviewing LLM-generated code remains largely unexplored. In this study, we conduct a Wizard-of-Oz experiment to examine how software engineers behave when code is explicitly labeled as LLM-generated during a code review task. We collect both behavioral data and participant feedback through eye-tracking and exit interviews. Combining Bayesian data analysis with qualitative analysis, we found that while the thoroughness of code review did not change for participants, they spent more time fixating on LLM-labelled code, indicating that the label itself influences attention. Practitioners also adapted their review strategy for LLM-labelled code by assessing the code based on specific criteria (e.g., logical correctness), or using the prompt to guide their review. These findings inform LLM-based tool design on labelling while incorporating the prompt as a software artifact. Our study reveals a gap between reviewers' intentions and actual reviewing behaviour, highlighting the need for software companies to revisit their AI policies (particularly regarding LLM-assisted development) to better support developers in reviewing LLM-generated code.