The Use of AI in Software Engineering: Synthetic Knowledge Synthesis of Recent Research Literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) has witnessed an exponential increase in its use in various applications. Recently, the academic community started to research and inject new AI-based approaches to provide solutions to traditional software engineering problems. However, a comprehensive and holistic understanding of the current status is missing. To close the above gap, synthetic knowledge synthesis was used to induce a research landscape of the contemporary research literature on the use of AI in software engineering. The synthesis resulted in 15 research categories and five themes, namely natural language processing in software engineering, use of artificial intelligence in the management of software development life cycle, use of machine learning in fault/defect prediction and effort estimation, employment of deep learning in intelligent software engineering and code management, and mining software repositories to improve software quality. The most productive country was China (n=2042), followed by the United States (n=1193), India (n=934), Germany (n=445), and Canada (n=381). A high percentage (n=47.4%) of papers were funded, showing a strong interest in this research topic. The convergence of AI and software engineering can significantly reduce needed resources, improve quality, increase user experience, and improve the well-being of software developers.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".