aiqbench analysis
This paper introduces TACT, a scalable framework for AI-assisted qualitative analysis that balances efficiency with human oversight in software engineering contexts. By employing adversarial model critique and uncertainty detection, the method achieves strong agreement with manual coding while maintaining control over interpretation. It offers a pragmatic solution for teams needing to analyze large volumes of stakeholder feedback without sacrificing rigor or incurring prohibitive costs.
TACT: A Pragmatic Approach to Qualitative Analysis with an AI Council
arXiv:2611.05702v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Qualitative data can tell software teams what their stakeholders need, yet rigorously analyzing thousands of qualitative responses takes expert time that few teams can afford or justify. Teams therefore often face a false choice: leave the responses unanalyzed, or hand them to a large language model and accept its interpretation and judgment. In this paper, we take a pragmatic approach to AI-assisted qualitative analysis and present TACT (Traceable AI Council for Thematic analysis), a procedure that enables such analysis at scale while keeping teams in control of interpretation and judgment. TACT comes in two variants: TACT-Lite, the core AI council procedure, and TACT-Full, which adds adversaries (models from other model families that critique each model's output) and a decision model that surfaces high-uncertainty code assignments. We evaluated TACT on an independent dataset of 256 Stack Overflow threads qualitatively coded by other researchers. Against their labels, TACT's candidate codebook achieved an F1 of 0.75-0.77 and its final coding an F1 of 0.71-0.72. On a held-out sample, agreement between our own manual coding and TACT's coding was Cohen's $\kappa$ of 0.79-0.85. TACT is also economical: model calls cost \$13.77 (TACT-Lite) to \$33.59 (TACT-Full) per 100 threads. Finally, drawing on our experience building and validating TACT, we identify pitfalls in AI-assisted qualitative analysis, describe safeguards to address them, and offer guidance for teams and researchers applying TACT in practice.
Abstract:Qualitative data can tell software teams what their stakeholders need, yet rigorously analyzing thousands of qualitative responses takes expert time that few teams can afford or justify. Teams therefore often face a false choice: leave the responses unanalyzed, or hand them to a large language model and accept its interpretation and judgment. In this paper, we take a pragmatic approach to AI-assisted qualitative analysis and present TACT (Traceable AI Council for Thematic analysis), a procedure that enables such analysis at scale while keeping teams in control of interpretation and judgment. TACT comes in two variants: TACT-Lite, the core AI council procedure, and TACT-Full, which adds adversaries (models from other model families that critique each model's output) and a decision model that surfaces high-uncertainty code assignments. We evaluated TACT on an independent dataset of 256 Stack Overflow threads qualitatively coded by other researchers. Against their labels, TACT's candidate codebook achieved an F1 of 0.75-0.77 and its final coding an F1 of 0.71-0.72. On a held-out sample, agreement between our own manual coding and TACT's coding was Cohen's $\kappa$ of 0.79-0.85. TACT is also economical: model calls cost \$13.77 (TACT-Lite) to \$33.59 (TACT-Full) per 100 threads. Finally, drawing on our experience building and validating TACT, we identify pitfalls in AI-assisted qualitative analysis, describe safeguards to address them, and offer guidance for teams and researchers applying TACT in practice.
Software Engineering (cs.SE); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Human-Computer Interaction (cs.HC)
arXiv:2611.05702 [cs.SE]
(or arXiv:2611.05702v1 [cs.SE] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2611.05702 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 326 words
Related coverage
Belief-Based Maximum Occupancy Principle and Active Inference
arXiv · Oct 1, 2026
Domain-specific Pretraining Profile and Transformer Performance: Evidence from Modeling Digital Pragmatics in Arabic-English Code-switching
arXiv · Sep 15, 2026
Review of Fundamental Uncertainty.
LessWrong · Aug 1, 2026
The Continual Constitutional Convention: How language models revise the documents that govern them
AI Alignment Forum · Oct 13, 2026