An Empirical Study on Performance Bugs in Deep Learning Frameworks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Machine Learning (ML) and Deep Learning (DL) applications are becoming more popular due to the availability of DL frameworks such as TensorFlow and PyTorch. Therefore, the quality of DL frameworks is essential to ensure DL/ML application quality. Given the computationally expensive nature of DL tasks (e.g., training), performance is a critical aspect of DL frameworks. However, optimizing DL frameworks may have its own unique challenges due to the peculiarities of DL (e.g., hardware integration and the nature of the computation). In this paper, we conduct an empirical study on the performance bugs in DL frameworks. We conduct our study on TensorFlow and PyTorch by identifying the performance and non-performance bugs by mining the GitHub repositories. We find that 1) the proportion of newly reported performance bugs increases faster than fixed performance bugs, and the ratio of performance bugs among all bugs increases over time; 2) performance bugs take more time to fix, have larger fix sizes, and more community engagement (e.g., discussion) compared to non-performance bugs; and 3) we manually derived a taxonomy of 12 categories and 19 sub-categories of the root causes of performance bugs by studying all performance bug fixes. Finally, we present some actionable implications for researchers and developers.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".