Machine learning experiment management tools: a mixed-methods empirical study

IF 3.5 2区 计算机科学 Q1 COMPUTER SCIENCE, SOFTWARE ENGINEERING
Samuel Idowu, Osman Osman, Daniel Strüber, Thorsten Berger
{"title":"Machine learning experiment management tools: a mixed-methods empirical study","authors":"Samuel Idowu, Osman Osman, Daniel Strüber, Thorsten Berger","doi":"10.1007/s10664-024-10444-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Machine Learning (ML) experiment management tools support ML practitioners and software engineers when building intelligent software systems. By managing large numbers of ML experiments comprising many different ML assets, they not only facilitate engineering ML models and ML-enabled systems, but also managing their evolution—for instance, tracing system behavior to concrete experiments when the model performance drifts. However, while ML experiment management tools have become increasingly popular, little is known about their effectiveness in practice, as well as their actual benefits and challenges. We present a mixed-methods empirical study of experiment management tools and the support they provide to users. First, our survey of 81 ML practitioners sought to determine the benefits and challenges of ML experiment management and of the existing tool landscape. Second, a controlled experiment with 15 student developers investigated the effectiveness of ML experiment management tools. We learned that 70% of our survey respondents perform ML experiments using specialized tools, while out of those who do not use such tools, 52% are unaware of experiment management tools or of their benefits. The controlled experiment showed that experiment management tools offer valuable support to users to systematically track and retrieve ML assets. Using ML experiment management tools reduced error rates and increased completion rates. By presenting a user’s perspective on experiment management tools, and the first controlled experiment in this area, we hope that our results foster the adoption of these tools in practice, as well as they direct tool builders and researchers to improve the tool landscape overall.</p>","PeriodicalId":11525,"journal":{"name":"Empirical Software Engineering","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Empirical Software Engineering","FirstCategoryId":"94","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-024-10444-w","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"计算机科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"COMPUTER SCIENCE, SOFTWARE ENGINEERING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Machine Learning (ML) experiment management tools support ML practitioners and software engineers when building intelligent software systems. By managing large numbers of ML experiments comprising many different ML assets, they not only facilitate engineering ML models and ML-enabled systems, but also managing their evolution—for instance, tracing system behavior to concrete experiments when the model performance drifts. However, while ML experiment management tools have become increasingly popular, little is known about their effectiveness in practice, as well as their actual benefits and challenges. We present a mixed-methods empirical study of experiment management tools and the support they provide to users. First, our survey of 81 ML practitioners sought to determine the benefits and challenges of ML experiment management and of the existing tool landscape. Second, a controlled experiment with 15 student developers investigated the effectiveness of ML experiment management tools. We learned that 70% of our survey respondents perform ML experiments using specialized tools, while out of those who do not use such tools, 52% are unaware of experiment management tools or of their benefits. The controlled experiment showed that experiment management tools offer valuable support to users to systematically track and retrieve ML assets. Using ML experiment management tools reduced error rates and increased completion rates. By presenting a user’s perspective on experiment management tools, and the first controlled experiment in this area, we hope that our results foster the adoption of these tools in practice, as well as they direct tool builders and researchers to improve the tool landscape overall.

Abstract Image

机器学习实验管理工具:混合方法实证研究
在构建智能软件系统时,机器学习(ML)实验管理工具可为 ML 从业人员和软件工程师提供支持。通过管理由许多不同的 ML 资产组成的大量 ML 实验,它们不仅能促进 ML 模型和支持 ML 的系统的工程设计,还能管理它们的演化--例如,当模型性能发生偏移时,可将系统行为追踪到具体的实验中。然而,虽然 ML 实验管理工具越来越受欢迎,但人们对它们在实践中的有效性以及实际优势和挑战却知之甚少。我们采用混合方法对实验管理工具及其为用户提供的支持进行了实证研究。首先,我们对 81 名 ML 从业人员进行了调查,以确定 ML 实验管理和现有工具的优势和挑战。其次,我们对 15 名学生开发人员进行了对照实验,以调查 ML 实验管理工具的有效性。我们了解到,70% 的调查对象使用专门工具进行 ML 实验,而在不使用此类工具的调查对象中,52% 的人不知道实验管理工具或其好处。对照实验表明,实验管理工具为用户系统跟踪和检索 ML 资产提供了宝贵的支持。使用 ML 实验管理工具降低了错误率,提高了完成率。通过介绍用户对实验管理工具的看法以及该领域的首个对照实验,我们希望我们的结果能够促进这些工具在实践中的应用,并引导工具构建者和研究人员改进工具的整体状况。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Empirical Software Engineering
Empirical Software Engineering 工程技术-计算机:软件工程
CiteScore
8.50
自引率
12.20%
发文量
169
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Empirical Software Engineering provides a forum for applied software engineering research with a strong empirical component, and a venue for publishing empirical results relevant to both researchers and practitioners. Empirical studies presented here usually involve the collection and analysis of data and experience that can be used to characterize, evaluate and reveal relationships between software development deliverables, practices, and technologies. Over time, it is expected that such empirical results will form a body of knowledge leading to widely accepted and well-formed theories. The journal also offers industrial experience reports detailing the application of software technologies - processes, methods, or tools - and their effectiveness in industrial settings. Empirical Software Engineering promotes the publication of industry-relevant research, to address the significant gap between research and practice.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信