An Exploratory Study on Automatic Identification of Assumptions in the Development of Deep Learning Frameworks
January 08, 2024 Β· Declared Dead Β· π Science of Computer Programming
"No code URL or promise found in abstract"
Evidence collected by the PWNC Scanner
Authors
Chen Yang, Peng Liang, Zinan Ma
arXiv ID
2401.03653
Category
cs.SE: Software Engineering
Cross-listed
cs.LG
Citations
0
Venue
Science of Computer Programming
Last Checked
5 months ago
Abstract
Stakeholders constantly make assumptions in the development of deep learning (DL) frameworks. These assumptions are related to various types of software artifacts (e.g., requirements, design decisions, and technical debt) and can turn out to be invalid, leading to system failures. Existing approaches and tools for assumption management usually depend on manual identification of assumptions. However, assumptions are scattered in various sources (e.g., code comments, commits, pull requests, and issues) of DL framework development, and manually identifying assumptions has high costs. This study intends to evaluate different classification models for the purpose of identification with respect to assumptions from the point of view of developers and users in the context of DL framework projects (i.e., issues, pull requests, and commits) on GitHub. First, we constructed a new and largest dataset (i.e., the AssuEval dataset) of assumptions collected from the TensorFlow and Keras repositories on GitHub. Then we explored the performance of seven non-transformers based models (e.g., Support Vector Machine, Classification and Regression Trees), the ALBERT model, and three decoder-only models (i.e., ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini) for identifying assumptions on the AssuEval dataset. The study results show that ALBERT achieves the best performance (f1-score: 0.9584) for identifying assumptions on the AssuEval dataset, which is much better than the other models (the 2nd best f1-score is 0.8858, achieved by the Claude 3.5 Sonnet model). Though ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini are popular models, we do not recommend using them to identify assumptions in DL framework development because of their low performance. Fine-tuning ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, or other language models (e.g., Llama3, Falcon, and BLOOM) specifically for assumptions might improve their performance for assumption identification.
Community Contributions
Found the code? Know the venue? Think something is wrong? Let us know!
π Similar Papers
In the same crypt β Software Engineering
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Microservices: yesterday, today, and tomorrow
π
π
The Cartographer
A Survey of Machine Learning for Big Code and Naturalness
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
An Overview on Smart Contracts: Challenges, Advances and Platforms
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Slither: A Static Analysis Framework For Smart Contracts
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
ContractFuzzer: Fuzzing Smart Contracts for Vulnerability Detection
Died the same way β π» Ghosted
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Federated Learning: Strategies for Improving Communication Efficiency
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
In-Datacenter Performance Analysis of a Tensor Processing Unit
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Deep Convolutional Neural Networks for Computer-Aided Detection: CNN Architectures, Dataset Characteristics and Transfer Learning
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted