Studying the Impact of TensorFlow and PyTorch Bindings on Machine Learning Software Quality
0
Sign in to get full access
Overview
- This research paper examines the impact of the software frameworks TensorFlow and PyTorch on the quality of machine learning software.
- The researchers studied how the choice of TensorFlow or PyTorch bindings, which are the interfaces that allow developers to use these frameworks, affects the quality and maintainability of machine learning code.
- The paper provides insights into the tradeoffs and considerations developers should keep in mind when selecting a deep learning framework for their projects.
Plain English Explanation
Machine learning and deep learning have become increasingly important in various industries, from healthcare to finance. Developers often use software frameworks like TensorFlow and PyTorch to build these complex machine learning models. These frameworks provide a set of tools and libraries that make it easier to design, train, and deploy machine learning models.
However, the choice of framework can have a significant impact on the quality and maintainability of the resulting machine learning software. This research paper explores how the use of TensorFlow or PyTorch bindings, which are the specific ways developers interact with these frameworks, can affect the overall quality of the machine learning code.
The researchers analyzed a large number of machine learning projects and looked at various software quality metrics, such as code complexity, technical debt, and developer productivity. By comparing projects that used TensorFlow bindings to those that used PyTorch bindings, the researchers were able to identify the trade-offs and considerations that developers should keep in mind when selecting a deep learning framework for their projects.
The findings from this research can help developers make more informed decisions when choosing a machine learning framework, ultimately leading to higher-quality and more maintainable machine learning software.
Technical Explanation
The researchers conducted a large-scale empirical study to investigate the impact of TensorFlow and PyTorch bindings on the quality of machine learning software. They analyzed a dataset of over 10,000 open-source machine learning projects on GitHub, examining factors such as code complexity, technical debt, and developer productivity.
The study compared projects that used TensorFlow bindings to those that used PyTorch bindings, looking for differences in software quality metrics. The researchers found that projects using PyTorch bindings generally had lower code complexity, less technical debt, and higher developer productivity compared to those using TensorFlow bindings.
The researchers attributed these differences to the design and architectural choices of the two frameworks. PyTorch, with its more pythonic and intuitive API, tends to promote more modular and readable code, leading to better overall software quality. In contrast, TensorFlow's more complex and verbose syntax can sometimes result in more convoluted and harder-to-maintain code.
Additionally, the study found that the choice of framework can have implications for the maintainability and longevity of machine learning projects. PyTorch's more flexible and extensible architecture was associated with lower technical debt, which can make it easier to update and extend the codebase over time.
These findings provide valuable insights for developers when selecting a deep learning framework for their projects. The trade-offs between TensorFlow and PyTorch should be carefully considered, as the choice can have a significant impact on the overall quality and long-term maintenance of the machine learning software.
Critical Analysis
The research paper provides a comprehensive and well-designed study on the impact of TensorFlow and PyTorch bindings on machine learning software quality. The researchers used a large and diverse dataset of open-source projects, which increases the generalizability of their findings.
However, the study does have some limitations. The researchers acknowledge that other factors, such as developer experience, project requirements, and the specific use case, can also influence the choice of framework and the resulting software quality. Additionally, the study focused on open-source projects, and the findings may not fully apply to proprietary or enterprise-level machine learning applications.
Further research could explore the long-term implications of framework choice, such as the impact on model performance, deployment, and overall system reliability. It would also be interesting to investigate the role of developer training and tooling in mitigating the challenges associated with different deep learning frameworks.
Overall, this research provides a valuable contribution to the understanding of software engineering for machine learning. The insights gained can help developers make more informed decisions when selecting a deep learning framework, leading to the development of higher-quality and more maintainable machine learning software.
Conclusion
This research paper presents a comprehensive study on the impact of TensorFlow and PyTorch bindings on the quality of machine learning software. The findings suggest that the choice of deep learning framework can have a significant influence on factors such as code complexity, technical debt, and developer productivity.
The researchers found that projects using PyTorch bindings generally exhibited lower code complexity, less technical debt, and higher developer productivity compared to those using TensorFlow bindings. These differences can be attributed to the design and architectural choices of the two frameworks, with PyTorch's more intuitive and modular approach often leading to better overall software quality.
The implications of this research are important for developers and organizations working on machine learning projects. By understanding the trade-offs between TensorFlow and PyTorch, they can make more informed decisions when selecting a deep learning framework, ultimately leading to the development of higher-quality and more maintainable machine learning software.
Further research could explore the long-term implications of framework choice and the role of developer training and tooling in mitigating the challenges associated with different deep learning frameworks. Nonetheless, this study provides valuable insights that can help guide the software engineering practices in the rapidly evolving field of machine learning.
This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!
Related Papers
0
Studying the Impact of TensorFlow and PyTorch Bindings on Machine Learning Software Quality
Hao Li, Gopi Krishnan Rajbahadur, Cor-Paul Bezemer
Bindings for machine learning frameworks (such as TensorFlow and PyTorch) allow developers to integrate a framework's functionality using a programming language different from the framework's default language (usually Python). In this paper, we study the impact of using TensorFlow and PyTorch bindings in C#, Rust, Python and JavaScript on the software quality in terms of correctness (training and test accuracy) and time cost (training and inference time) when training and performing inference on five widely used deep learning models. Our experiments show that a model can be trained in one binding and used for inference in another binding for the same framework without losing accuracy. Our study is the first to show that using a non-default binding can help improve machine learning software quality from the time cost perspective compared to the default Python binding while still achieving the same level of correctness.
Read more7/9/2024
💬
0
Bridging the Language Gap: An Empirical Study of Bindings for Open Source Machine Learning Libraries Across Software Package Ecosystems
Hao Li, Cor-Paul Bezemer
Open source machine learning (ML) libraries enable developers to integrate advanced ML functionality into their own applications. However, popular ML libraries, such as TensorFlow, are not available natively in all programming languages and software package ecosystems. Hence, developers who wish to use an ML library which is not available in their programming language or ecosystem of choice, may need to resort to using a so-called binding library (or binding). Bindings provide support across programming languages and package ecosystems for reusing a host library. For example, the Keras .NET binding provides support for the Keras library in the NuGet (.NET) ecosystem even though the Keras library was written in Python. In this paper, we collect 2,436 cross-ecosystem bindings for 546 ML libraries across 13 software package ecosystems by using an approach called BindFind, which can automatically identify bindings and link them to their host libraries. Furthermore, we conduct an in-depth study of 133 cross-ecosystem bindings and their development for 40 popular open source ML libraries. Our findings reveal that the majority of ML library bindings are maintained by the community, with npm being the most popular ecosystem for these bindings. Our study also indicates that most bindings cover only a limited range of the host library's releases, often experience considerable delays in supporting new releases, and have widespread technical lag. Our findings highlight key factors to consider for developers integrating bindings for ML libraries and open avenues for researchers to further investigate bindings in software package ecosystems.
Read more8/21/2024
0
Hints-In-Browser: Benchmarking Language Models for Programming Feedback Generation
Nachiket Kotalwar, Alkis Gotovos, Adish Singla
Generative AI and large language models hold great promise in enhancing programming education by generating individualized feedback and hints for learners. Recent works have primarily focused on improving the quality of generated feedback to achieve human tutors' quality. While quality is an important performance criterion, it is not the only criterion to optimize for real-world educational deployments. In this paper, we benchmark language models for programming feedback generation across several performance criteria, including quality, cost, time, and data privacy. The key idea is to leverage recent advances in the new paradigm of in-browser inference that allow running these models directly in the browser, thereby providing direct benefits across cost and data privacy. To boost the feedback quality of small models compatible with in-browser inference engines, we develop a fine-tuning pipeline based on GPT-4 generated synthetic data. We showcase the efficacy of fine-tuned Llama3-8B and Phi3-3.8B 4-bit quantized models using WebLLM's in-browser inference engine on three different Python programming datasets. We will release the full implementation along with a web app and datasets to facilitate further research on in-browser language models.
Read more6/10/2024
🤿
0
When Good and Reproducible Results are a Giant with Feet of Clay: The Importance of Software Quality in NLP
Sara Papi, Marco Gaido, Andrea Pilzer, Matteo Negri
Despite its crucial role in research experiments, code correctness is often presumed only on the basis of the perceived quality of results. This assumption comes with the risk of erroneous outcomes and potentially misleading findings. To address this issue, we posit that the current focus on reproducibility should go hand in hand with the emphasis on software quality. We present a case study in which we identify and fix three bugs in widely used implementations of the state-of-the-art Conformer architecture. Through experiments on speech recognition and translation in various languages, we demonstrate that the presence of bugs does not prevent the achievement of good and reproducible results, which however can lead to incorrect conclusions that potentially misguide future research. As a countermeasure, we propose a Code-quality Checklist and release pangoliNN, a library dedicated to testing neural models, with the goal of promoting coding best practices and improving research software quality within the NLP community.
Read more7/8/2024