Design Smells in Deep Learning Programs: An Empirical Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nowadays, we are witnessing an increasing adoption of Deep Learning (DL) based software systems in many industries. Designing a DL program requires constructing a deep neural network (DNN) and then training it on a dataset. This process requires that developers make multiple architectural (e.g., type, size, number, and order of layers) and configuration (e.g., optimizer, regularization methods, and activation functions) choices that affect the quality of the DL models, and consequently software quality. An under-specified or poorly-designed DL model may train successfully but is likely to perform poorly when deployed in production. Design smells in DL programs are poor design and-or configuration decisions taken during the development of DL components, that are likely to have a negative impact on the performance (i.e., prediction accuracy) and then quality of DL based software systems. In this paper, we present a catalogue of 8 design smells for a popular DL architecture, namely deep Feedforward Neural Networks which is widely employed in industrial applications. The design smells were identified through a review of the existing literature on DL design and a manual inspection of 659 DL programs with performance issues and design inefficiencies. The smells are specified by describing their context, consequences, and recommended refactorings. To provide empirical evidence on the relevance and perceived impact of the proposed design smells, we conducted a survey with 81 DL developers. In general, the developers perceived the proposed design smells as reflective of design or implementation problems, with agreement levels varying between 47% and 68%.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.103 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".