Facilitating Trust in AI-assisted Software Tools

The day to day of a software engineer involves a variety of tasks. While many of these tasks are collaborative, it is not always possible or feasible to engage with other engineers for task completion. Software tools, such as code generators and static analysis tools, aim to fill this gap by providing additional support for developers to effectively complete their tasks. With a steady stream of new tools emerging to support software engineers, including a new breed of tools that rely on artificial intelligence (AI), there are important questions to answer regarding the trust engineers can, and should, put into their software tools and what it means to build a trustworthy tool. To this end, this paper presents findings from a mixed methods investigation of the factors that contribute to trust in traditional and AI-assisted software tools. First, we introduce the PICSE (pronounced “pixie”) framework for trust in software tools that we developed based on a set of 18 interviews with software practitioners internal and external to Microsoft. We then discuss insights from a survey with 368 internal Microsoft responses on the relevance and importance of the factors in our framework with respect to traditional and AI-assisted tools.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology
Published
2025-10-22
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1145/3772370
Primary Topic
Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Facilitating Trust in AI-assisted Software Tools

Denae Ford, Ebtesam Al Haque, Christian Bird, Thomas Zimmermann et al.
ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology
Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
article

Facilitating Trust in AI-assisted Software Tools

Denae Ford, Ebtesam Al Haque, Christian Bird, Thomas Zimmermann, Nicole Forsgren, Brittany Johnson
article en

Abstract

The day to day of a software engineer involves a variety of tasks. While many of these tasks are collaborative, it is not always possible or feasible to engage with other engineers for task completion. Software tools, such as code generators and static analysis tools, aim to fill this gap by providing additional support for developers to effectively complete their tasks. With a steady stream of new tools emerging to support software engineers, including a new breed of tools that rely on artificial intelligence (AI), there are important questions to answer regarding the trust engineers can, and should, put into their software tools and what it means to build a trustworthy tool. To this end, this paper presents findings from a mixed methods investigation of the factors that contribute to trust in traditional and AI-assisted software tools. First, we introduce the PICSE (pronounced “pixie”) framework for trust in software tools that we developed based on a set of 18 interviews with software practitioners internal and external to Microsoft. We then discuss insights from a survey with 368 internal Microsoft responses on the relevance and importance of the factors in our framework with respect to traditional and AI-assisted tools.

ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology
Microsoft (United States) (US), George Mason University (US), University of California, Irvine (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 70%
Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Facilitating Trust in AI-assisted Software Tools — Denae Ford, Ebtesam Al Haque, et al. · ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology (2025) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS