The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Software Engineering for Machine Learning: A Case Study
Abstract
Recent advances in machine learning have stimulated widespread interest within the Information Technology sector on integrating AI capabilities into software and services. This goal has forced organizations to evolve their development processes. We report on a study that we conducted on observing software teams at Microsoft as they develop AI-based applications. We consider a nine-stage workflow process informed by prior experiences developing AI applications (e.g., search and NLP) and data science tools (e.g. application diagnostics and bug reporting). We found that various Microsoft teams have united this workflow into preexisting, well-evolved, Agile-like software engineering processes, providing insights about several essential engineering challenges that organizations may face in creating large-scale AI solutions for the marketplace. We collected some best practices from Microsoft teams to address these challenges. In addition, we have identified three aspects of the AI domain that make it fundamentally different from prior software application domains: 1) discovering, managing, and versioning the data needed for machine learning applications is much more complex and difficult than other types of software engineering, 2) model customization and model reuse require very different skills than are typically found in software teams, and 3) AI components are more difficult to handle as distinct modules than traditional software components - models may be "entangled" in complex ways and experience non-monotonic error behavior. We believe that the lessons learned by Microsoft teams will be valuable to other organizations.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Gebru, T., Morgenstern, J., Vecchione, B., Vaughan, J. W., Wallach, H., Daumé, H., & Crawford, K. (2018) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1803.09010 · Cited by 2,474
Gebru, T., Morgenstern, J., Vecchione, B., Vaughan, J. W., Wallach, H., III, H. D., & Crawford, K. (2021) · Communications of the ACM · doi:10.1145/3458723 · Cited by 2,469
The KDD process for extracting useful knowledge from volumes of data
Fayyad, U., Piatetsky-Shapiro, G., & Smyth, P. (1996) · Communications of the ACM · doi:10.1145/240455.240464 · Cited by 1,934
DevOps Capabilities, Practices, and Challenges: Insights from a Case Study
Senapathi, M., Buchan, J., & Osman, H. (2018) · Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering 2018 · doi:10.1145/3210459.3210465 · Cited by 172
Towards Accountable AI: Hybrid Human-Machine Analyses for Characterizing System Failure
Nushi, B., Kamar, E., & Horvitz, E. (2018) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Human Computation and Crowdsourcing · doi:10.1609/hcomp.v6i1.13337 · Cited by 126
Self-citation
Cited by
Machine Learning Testing: Survey, Landscapes and Horizons
Zhang, J. M., Harman, M., Ma, L., & Liu, Y. (2022) · IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering · doi:10.1109/tse.2019.2962027 · Cited by 897
Beyond accuracy: behavioral testing of NLP models with CheckList
Ribeiro, M. T., Wu, T., Guestrin, C., & Singh, S. (2020) · Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.442 · Cited by 890
“Everyone wants to do the model work, not the data work”: Data Cascades in High-Stakes AI
Sambasivan, N., Kapania, S., Highfill, H., Akrong, D., Paritosh, P., & Aroyo, L. M. (2021) · Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3411764.3445518 · Cited by 781
Challenges in deploying machine learning: A survey of case studies
Paleyes, A., Urma, R.-G., & Lawrence, N. D. (2023) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/3533378 · Cited by 638
Data collection and quality challenges in deep learning: a data-centric AI perspective
Whang, S. E., Roh, Y., Song, H., & Lee, J.-G. (2023) · The VLDB Journal · doi:10.1007/s00778-022-00775-9 · Cited by 573
Metadata
- Authors
- Amershi, S., Begel, A., Bird, C., DeLine, R., Gall, H., Kamar, E., Nagappan, N., Nushi, B., & Zimmermann, T.
- Venue
- 2019 IEEE/ACM 41st International Conference on Software Engineering: Software Engineering in Practice (ICSE-SEIP)
- Publisher
- IEEE
- Published
- 2019-05
- Pages
- 291-300
- OpenAlex
- W2922234936
- Cited by
- 1,135
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 92.62
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Software Engineering for Machine Learning: A Case Study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1109/icse-seip.2019.00042
- The paper
- Amershi, S., Begel, A., Bird, C., DeLine, R., Gall, H., Kamar, E., Nagappan, N., Nushi, B., & Zimmermann, T. (2019). Software Engineering for Machine Learning: A Case Study. 2019 IEEE/ACM 41st International Conference on Software Engineering: Software Engineering in Practice (ICSE-SEIP). https://doi.org/10.1109/icse-seip.2019.00042
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.