Roadmap Analysis of Artificial Intelligence Engineering Method
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The characteristics of AI-based software have the potential to reshape traditional software development paradigms.Consequently, this study conducts a systematic literature review (SLR) within the field of AI Engineering to identify the unique challenges in software engineering for AI-based systems, which are transforming traditional software development paradigms.The scope of the SLR includes literature from academic journals and conference proceedings published between 2018 and 2023, selected through a rigorous process.The methodology involved using specific search keywords across databases such as Scopus, ScienceDirect, ACM Digital Library, and IEEE Xplore, with a stringent application of Kitchenham's inclusion and exclusion criteria to ensure a focused and relevant review.This review provides a consolidated summary of diverse research endeavors addressing challenges, issues, and methodologies relevant to AI-based software development.Highlighted topics encompass challenges in requirements engineering for AI-intensive system development, responsible software development (responsible AI), the formulation of a software engineering roadmap for responsible AI, the application of TrustOps as a risk management methodology in AI system development, the necessity of incorporating software engineering methods in AI-based systems, as well as studies exploring requirements engineering practices, AI-intensive system development, and the utilization of tools in machine learning model development.Key findings include the importance of recognizing ethical requirements in AI development, the role of risk management and ethical attributes, and the challenges of connecting requirements between software developers, data scientists, and machine learning specialists.This research provides valuable insights for practitioners and researchers involved in developing AI-based software to overcome existing challenges and apply appropriate methods in the development process.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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 it