惯性聚合 高效追踪和阅读你感兴趣的博客、新闻、科技资讯
阅读原文 在惯性聚合中打开

推荐订阅源

月光博客
月光博客
雷峰网
雷峰网
S
SegmentFault 最新的问题
博客园 - 【当耐特】
博客园_首页
量子位
爱范儿
爱范儿
博客园 - 叶小钗
freeCodeCamp Programming Tutorials: Python, JavaScript, Git & More
Jina AI
Jina AI
V
V2EX
美团技术团队
V
Visual Studio Blog
博客园 - 三生石上(FineUI控件)
IT之家
IT之家
Hugging Face - Blog
Hugging Face - Blog
Apple Machine Learning Research
Apple Machine Learning Research
小众软件
小众软件
博客园 - 聂微东
钛媒体:引领未来商业与生活新知
钛媒体:引领未来商业与生活新知
The Cloudflare Blog
宝玉的分享
宝玉的分享
WordPress大学
WordPress大学
OSCHINA 社区最新新闻
OSCHINA 社区最新新闻

cs.SE updates on arXiv.org

VLA Foundry: A Unified Framework for Training Vision-Language-Action Models Evaluating LLM-Generated Obfuscated XSS Payloads for Machine Learning-Based Detection Do Agents Dream of Root Shells? Partial-Credit Evaluation of LLM Agents in Capture the Flag Challenges Refute-or-Promote: An Adversarial Stage-Gated Multi-Agent Review Methodology for High-Precision LLM-Assisted Defect Discovery From Particles to Perils: SVGD-Based Hazardous Scenario Generation for Autonomous Driving Systems Testing Choose Your Own Adventure: Non-Linear AI-Assisted Programming with EvoGraph Human-Machine Co-Boosted Bug Report Identification with Mutualistic Neural Active Learning LLMSniffer: Detecting LLM-Generated Code via GraphCodeBERT and Supervised Contrastive Learning Neurosymbolic Repo-level Code Localization CodeMMR: Bridging Natural Language, Code, and Image for Unified Retrieval Symbolic Guardrails for Domain-Specific Agents: Stronger Safety and Security Guarantees Without Sacrificing Utility Verification Modulo Tested Library Contracts The Semi-Executable Stack: Agentic Software Engineering and the Expanding Scope of SE Scaling Test-Time Compute for Agentic Coding AI-Assisted Requirements Engineering: An Empirical Evaluation Relative to Expert Judgment From Procedural Skills to Strategy Genes: Towards Experience-Driven Test-Time Evolution Atropos: Improving Cost-Benefit Trade-off of LLM-based Agents under Self-Consistency with Early Termination and Model Hotswap Vibe-Coding: Feedback-Based Automated Verification with no Human Code Inspection, a Feasibility Study Benchmarks for Trajectory Safety Evaluation and Diagnosis in OpenClaw and Codex: ATBench-Claw and ATBench-Codex Bounded Autonomy for Enterprise AI: Typed Action Contracts and Consumer-Side Execution AIPC: Agent-Based Automation for AI Model Deployment with Qualcomm AI Runtime Analyzing Chain of Thought (CoT) Approaches in Control Flow Code Deobfuscation Tasks Asking What Matters: Reward-Driven Clarification for Software Engineering Tasks Prompt-Driven Code Summarization: A Systematic Literature Review LinuxArena: A Control Setting for AI Agents in Live Production Software Environments LLMs taking shortcuts in test generation: A study with SAP HANA and LevelDB Large Language Models to Enhance Business Process Modeling: Past, Present, and Future Trends CollabCoder: Plan-Code Co-Evolution via Collaborative Decision-Making for Efficient Code Generation Sentiment analysis for software engineering: How far can zero-shot learning (ZSL) go? Learning from Change: Predictive Models for Incident Prevention in a Regulated IT Environment
When Domains Collide: An Activity Theory Exploration of C...
Zixuan Feng, Thomas Zimmermann, Lorenzo Pisani, Christopher Gool · 2025-06-25 · via cs.SE updates on arXiv.org

Background: Software development teams are increasingly diverse, embedded, and cross-disciplinary. Domain experts (DEs) from different disciplines collaborate with professional software developers (SDEs), bringing complementary expertise in creating and maintaining complex production software. However, contested expectations, divergent problem-solving perspectives, and conflicting priorities lead to friction. Aims: This study aims to investigate the dynamics of emerging collaboration of cross-disciplinary software development (CDSD) by exploring the expectations held by DEs and SDEs and understanding how these frictions manifest in practice. Method: We utilize Activity Theory (AT), a well-established socio-technical framework, as an analytical lens in a grounded, empirical investigation, conducted through a mixed-method study involving 24 interviews (12 DEs and 12 SDEs) and a large-scale validation survey with 293 participants (161 DEs and 132 SDEs). Results: We conceptualize and empirically ground the CDSD dynamics. We identified eight expectations held by SDEs and six by DEs. By mapping these expectations to AT components, we revealed 21 frictions in CDSD and illustrated where and how they arise. Conclusions: This study offers a theoretical lens for understanding the dynamics and frictions in CDSD and provides actionable insights for future research, practitioners, and infrastructure design.