REVIEW 2 cited by
Code Smells for Machine Learning Applications
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
Signed reviews
read the original abstract
The popularity of machine learning has wildly expanded in recent years. Machine learning techniques have been heatedly studied in academia and applied in the industry to create business value. However, there is a lack of guidelines for code quality in machine learning applications. In particular, code smells have rarely been studied in this domain. Although machine learning code is usually integrated as a small part of an overarching system, it usually plays an important role in its core functionality. Hence ensuring code quality is quintessential to avoid issues in the long run. This paper proposes and identifies a list of 22 machine learning-specific code smells collected from various sources, including papers, grey literature, GitHub commits, and Stack Overflow posts. We pinpoint each smell with a description of its context, potential issues in the long run, and proposed solutions. In addition, we link them to their respective pipeline stage and the evidence from both academic and grey literature. The code smell catalog helps data scientists and developers produce and maintain high-quality machine learning application code.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
Specification and Detection of LLM Code Smells
A catalog of five LLM code smells and a static detection tool find that 60.5% of 200 open-source LLM-using Python projects exhibit at least one smell.
-
Optimizing Token Consumption in LLMs: A Nano Surge Approach for Code Reasoning Efficiency
Refactoring smelly Java code and adding context, role, or token-limit prompts cut LLM chain-of-thought token use by roughly 15-50% in this study, but the 'no quality loss' claim rests only on shallow similarity metrics.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.