Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

One Documentation Does Not Fit All: Case Study of TensorFlow Documentation

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

arxiv 2505.01939 v1 pith:773VRXVV submitted 2025-05-03 cs.SE

classification cs.SE
keywords documentationquestionssoftwarelearningmachinetensorflowdevelopersbackgrounds
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Software documentation guides the proper use of tools or services. With the rapid growth of machine learning libraries, individuals from various fields are incorporating machine learning into their workflows through programming. However, many of these users lack software engineering experience, affecting the usability of the documentation. Traditionally, software developers have created documentation primarily for their peers, making it challenging for others to interpret and effectively use these resources. Moreover, no study has specifically focused on machine learning software documentation or analyzing the backgrounds of developers who rely on such documentation, highlighting a critical gap in understanding how to make these resources more accessible. This study examined customization trends in TensorFlow tutorials and compared these artifacts to analyze content and design differences. We also analyzed Stack Overflow questions related to TensorFlow documentation to understand the types of questions and the backgrounds of the developers asking them. Further, we developed two taxonomies based on the nature and triggers of the questions for machine learning software. Our findings showed no significant differences in the content or the nature of the questions across different tutorials. Our results show that 24.9% of the questions concern errors and exceptions, while 64.3% relate to inadequate and non-generalizable examples in the documentation. Despite efforts to create customized documentation, our analysis indicates that current TensorFlow documentation does not effectively support its target users.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Extension Decisions in Open Source Software Ecosystem

    cs.SE 2025-07 reject novelty 6.0 of 10

    A GitHub Actions graph study reports that most new CI tools duplicate existing functionality and that a handful of early tools become the templates for later copies, although the supporting calculation is missing from...

  2. The Impact of Foundational Models on Patient-Centric e-Health Systems

    cs.AI 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Most patient-centric e-health apps on Google Play remain at early stages of AI maturity; only 13.79% show advanced AI integration.

Pith tools