A Research Agenda on Agents and Software Engineering: Outcomes from the Rio A2SE Seminar

The rise of agentic AI is reshaping software engineering in two intertwined directions: agents are increasingly applied to support software engineering tasks, and Agentic AI systems themselves are complex systems that require re-thinking currently established software engineering practices. To chart a coherent research agenda covering the two directions, we organized the A2SE seminar in Rio de Janeiro, bringing together 18 experts from academia and industry. Through structured presentations, collaborative topic clustering, and focused group discussions, participants identified six thematic areas: Governance, Software Engineering for Agents, Agents for Software Architecture, Quality and Evaluation, Sustainability, and Code, and they prioritized short-term and long-term research directions for each. This paper presents the resulting community-driven, opinionated research agenda, offering the SE community a structured foundation for coordinating efforts at this critical juncture.

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

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.

Define-ML: An Approach to Ideate Machine Learning-Enabled Systems

[Context] The increasing adoption of machine learning (ML) in software systems demands specialized ideation approaches that address ML-specific challenges, including data dependencies, technical feasibility, and alignment between business objectives and probabilistic system behavior. Traditional ideation methods like Lean Inception lack structured support for these ML considerations, which can result in misaligned product visions and unrealistic expectations. [Goal] This paper presents Define-ML, a framework that extends Lean Inception with tailored activities - Data Source Mapping, Feature-to-Data Source Mapping, and ML Mapping - to systematically integrate data and technical constraints into early-stage ML product ideation. [Method] We developed and validated Define-ML following the Technology Transfer Model, conducting both static validation (with a toy problem) and dynamic validation (in a real-world industrial case study). The analysis combined quantitative surveys with qualitative feedback, assessing utility, ease of use, and intent of adoption. [Results] Participants found Define-ML effective for clarifying data concerns, aligning ML capabilities with business goals, and fostering cross-functional collaboration. The approach's structured activities reduced ideation ambiguity, though some noted a learning curve for ML-specific components, which can be mitigated by expert facilitation. All participants expressed the intention to adopt Define-ML. [Conclusion] Define-ML provides an openly available, validated approach for ML product ideation, building on Lean Inception's agility while aligning features with available data and increasing awareness of technical feasibility.