From Technical Excellence to Practical Adoption: Lessons Learned Building an ML-Enhanced Trace Analysis Tool
Bibliographic record
Abstract
System tracing has become essential for understanding complex software behavior in modern systems, yet sophisticated trace analysis tools face significant adoption gaps in industrial settings. Through a year-long collaboration with Ericsson Montréal, developing TMLL (Trace-Server Machine Learning Library, now in the Eclipse Foundation), we investigated barriers to trace analysis adoption. Contrary to assumptions about complexity or automation needs, practitioners struggled with translating expert knowledge into actionable insights, integrating analysis into their workflows, and trusting automated results they could not validate. We identified what we called the Excellence Paradox: technical excellence can actively impede adoption when conflicting with usability, transparency, and practitioner trust. TMLL addresses this through adoption-focused design that embeds expert knowledge in interfaces, provides transparent explanations, and enables incremental adoption. Validation through Ericsson's experts' feedback, Eclipse Foundation's integration, and a survey of 40 industry and academic professionals revealed consistent patterns: survey results showed that 77.5% prioritize quality and trust in results over technical sophistication, while 67.5% prefer semi-automated analysis with user control, findings supported by qualitative feedback from industrial collaboration and external peer review. Results validate three core principles: cognitive compatibility, embedded expertise, and transparency-based trust. This challenges conventional capability-focused tool development, demonstrating that sustainable adoption requires reorientation toward adoption-focused design with actionable implications for automated software engineering tools.
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 | 0.085 | 0.151 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.026 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".