Adoption and Effects of Software Engineering Best Practices in Machine Learning

July 28, 2020 Β· Declared Dead Β· πŸ› International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement

πŸ‘» CAUSE OF DEATH: Ghosted
No code link whatsoever

"No code URL or promise found in abstract"

Evidence collected by the PWNC Scanner

Authors Alex Serban, Koen van der Blom, Holger Hoos, Joost Visser arXiv ID 2007.14130 Category cs.SE: Software Engineering Citations 136 Venue International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Measurement Last Checked 4 months ago
Abstract
The increasing reliance on applications with machine learning (ML) components calls for mature engineering techniques that ensure these are built in a robust and future-proof manner. We aim to empirically determine the state of the art in how teams develop, deploy and maintain software with ML components. We mined both academic and grey literature and identified 29 engineering best practices for ML applications. We conducted a survey among 313 practitioners to determine the degree of adoption for these practices and to validate their perceived effects. Using the survey responses, we quantified practice adoption, differentiated along demographic characteristics, such as geography or team size. We also tested correlations and investigated linear and non-linear relationships between practices and their perceived effect using various statistical models. Our findings indicate, for example, that larger teams tend to adopt more practices, and that traditional software engineering practices tend to have lower adoption than ML specific practices. Also, the statistical models can accurately predict perceived effects such as agility, software quality and traceability, from the degree of adoption for specific sets of practices. Combining practice adoption rates with practice importance, as revealed by statistical models, we identify practices that are important but have low adoption, as well as practices that are widely adopted but are less important for the effects we studied. Overall, our survey and the analysis of responses received provide a quantitative basis for assessment and step-wise improvement of practice adoption by ML teams.
Community shame:
Not yet rated
Community Contributions

Found the code? Know the venue? Think something is wrong? Let us know!

πŸ“œ Similar Papers

In the same crypt β€” Software Engineering

Died the same way β€” πŸ‘» Ghosted