Technical debt in AI-enabled systems: On the prevalence, severity, impact, and management strategies for code and architecture

Context:

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is pervasive in several application domains and promises to be even more diffused in the next decades. Developing high-quality AI-enabled systems — software systems embedding one or multiple AI components, algorithms, and models — could introduce critical challenges for mitigating specific risks related to the systems’ quality. Such development alone is insufficient to fully address socio-technical consequences and the need for rapid adaptation to evolutionary changes. Recent work proposed the concept of AI technical debt, a potential liability concerned with developing AI-enabled systems whose impact can affect the overall systems’ quality. While the problem of AI technical debt is rapidly gaining the attention of the software engineering research community, scientific knowledge that contributes to understanding and managing the matter is still limited.

Objective:

In this paper, we leverage the expertise of practitioners to offer useful insights to the research community, aiming to enhance researchers’ awareness about the detection and mitigation of AI technical debt. Our ultimate goal is to empower practitioners by providing them with tools and methods. Additionally, our study sheds light on novel aspects that practitioners might not be fully acquainted with, contributing to a deeper understanding of the subject.

Method:

We develop a survey study featuring 53 AI practitioners, in which we collect information on the practical prevalence, severity, and impact of AI technical debt issues affecting the code and the architecture other than the strategies applied by practitioners to identify and mitigate them.

Results:

The key findings of the study reveal the multiple impacts that AI technical debt issues may have on the quality of AI-enabled systems (e.g., the high negative impact that Undeclared consumers has on security, whereas Jumbled Model Architecture can induce the code to be hard to maintain) and the little support practitioners have to deal with them, limited to apply manual effort for identification and refactoring.

Conclusion:

We conclude the article by distilling lessons learned and actionable insights for researchers.