Context. Code refactoring improves software quality without changing external behavior. Despite its advantages, its benefits are hindered by the considerable cost of time, resources, and continuous effort it demands. Aim. Understanding why developers refactor, and which metrics capture these motivations, may support wider and more effective use of refactoring in practice. Method. We performed a large-scale empirical study to analyze developers refactoring activity, leveraging Large Language Models (LLMs) to identify underlying motivations from version control data, comparing our findings with previous motivations reported in the literature. Results. LLMs matched human judgment in 80% of cases, but aligned with literature-based motivations in only 47%. They enriched 22% of motivations with more detailed rationale, often highlighting readability, clarity, and structural improvements. Most motivations were pragmatic, focused on simplification and maintainability. While metrics related to developer experience and code readability ranked highest, their correlation with motivation categories was weak. Conclusions. We conclude that LLMs effectively capture surface-level motivations but struggle with architectural reasoning. Their value lies in providing localized explanations, which, when combined with software metrics, can form hybrid approaches. Such integration offers a promising path toward prioritizing refactoring more systematically and balancing short-term improvements with long-term architectural goals.

Context: Empirical Software Engineering (ESE) drives innovation in SE through qualitative and quantitative studies. However, concerns about the correct application of empirical methodologies have existed since the 2006 Dagstuhl seminar on SE. Objective: To analyze three decades of SE research, identify mistakes in statistical methods, and evaluate experts' ability to detect and address these issues. Methods: We conducted a literature survey of ~27,000 empirical studies, using LLMs to classify statistical methodologies as adequate or inadequate. Additionally, we selected 30 primary studies and held a workshop with 33 ESE experts to assess their ability to identify and resolve statistical issues. Results: Significant statistical issues were found in the primary studies, and experts showed limited ability to detect and correct these methodological problems, raising concerns about the broader ESE community's proficiency in this area. Conclusions. Despite our study's eventual limitations, its results shed light on recurring issues from promoting information copy-and-paste from past authors' works and the continuous publication of inadequate approaches that promote dubious results and jeopardize the spread of the correct statistical strategies among researchers. Besides, it justifies further investigation into empirical rigor in software engineering to expose these recurring issues and establish a framework for reassessing our field's foundation of statistical methodology application. Therefore, this work calls for critically rethinking and reforming data analysis in empirical software engineering, paving the way for our work soon.

Context. Risk analysis assesses potential risks in specific scenarios. Risk analysis principles are context-less; the same methodology can be applied to a risk connected to health and information technology security. Risk analysis requires a vast knowledge of national and international regulations and standards and is time and effort-intensive. A large language model can quickly summarize information in less time than a human and can be fine-tuned to specific tasks. Aim. Our empirical study aims to investigate the effectiveness of Retrieval-Augmented Generation and fine-tuned LLM in risk analysis. To our knowledge, no prior study has explored its capabilities in risk analysis. Method. We manually curated 193 unique scenarios leading to 1283 representative samples from over 50 mission-critical analyses archived by the industrial context team in the last five years. We compared the base GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 models versus their Retrieval-Augmented Generation and fine-tuned counterparts. We employ two human experts as competitors of the models and three other human experts to review the models and the former human experts' analysis. The reviewers analyzed 5,000 scenario analyses. Results and Conclusions. Human experts demonstrated higher accuracy, but LLMs are quicker and more actionable. Moreover, our findings show that RAG-assisted LLMs have the lowest hallucination rates, effectively uncovering hidden risks and complementing human expertise. Thus, the choice of model depends on specific needs, with FTMs for accuracy, RAG for hidden risks discovery, and base models for comprehensiveness and actionability. Therefore, experts can leverage LLMs as an effective complementing companion in risk analysis within a condensed timeframe. They can also save costs by averting unnecessary expenses associated with implementing unwarranted countermeasures.

Quantum computing, albeit readily available as hardware or emulated on the cloud, is still far from being available in general regarding complex programming paradigms and learning curves. This vision paper introduces $Classi|Q\rangle$, a translation framework idea to bridge Classical and Quantum Computing by translating high-level programming languages, e.g., Python or C++, into a low-level language, e.g., Quantum Assembly. Our idea paper serves as a blueprint for ongoing efforts in quantum software engineering, offering a roadmap for further $Classi|Q\rangle$ development to meet the diverse needs of researchers and practitioners. $Classi|Q\rangle$ is designed to empower researchers and practitioners with no prior quantum experience to harness the potential of hybrid quantum computation. We also discuss future enhancements to $Classi|Q\rangle$, including support for additional quantum languages, improved optimization strategies, and integration with emerging quantum computing platforms.