Track papers across labs, topics, and trends.
Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper investigates the efficacy of Small Language Models (SLMs) in automatically extracting and classifying stages within diverse Machine Learning (ML) pipelines from source code, a task hindered by the rapid evolution of ML practices and limitations of existing methods. Through a confirmatory study comparing SLMs against established classifiers and analyzing the impact of taxonomy variations, the research reveals that while SLMs offer promising performance without fine-tuning, they do not consistently outperform existing methods and face inference cost challenges for large-scale application. The findings underscore that taxonomy wording significantly influences SLM classification accuracy and that different classification approaches yield divergent insights into data scientist practices.
Small Language Models can parse ML pipeline structures, but their insights into data science practices diverge significantly from other classifiers, highlighting the critical impact of taxonomy definition.
Context: Once defined a taxonomy of stages structuring Machine Learning (ML) pipelines (e.g. Data Preprocessing, Modeling...), extracting these stages from source code is key for better understanding ML practices. However, the diversity caused by the constant evolution of ML (e.g., algorithms, datasets) makes this task challenging. Existing approaches either rely on non-scalable manual labeling or on classifiers that do not properly support domain's diversity. These limitations call for more reliable solutions. Objective: We evaluate whether Small Language Models (SLMs) can leverage their code understanding and classification abilities to address these limitations, and enhance our understanding of practices in ML. Method: We conduct a confirmatory study based on two relevant reference works representing current limitations in the state-of-the-art. We first compare several SLMs using Cochran's Q test, then evaluate the best-performing model against reference studies via two McNemar's tests. An additional Cochran's Q test examines how taxonomy definition variations affect the SLM performance. Finally, goodness-of-fit tests compare ML practice insights from SLM classification with those from prior studies. Results: First, we found that the taxonomy wording significantly impacts classification performance. Second, the best performing SLM yielded good results, yet, without outperforming other classifiers. Third, the three classification methods led to significantly different insights, with varying effect sizes, when exploring practices of data scientists. Conclusions: Limitations of existing classification methods bias our understanding of ML practices. While current SLMs show promising results without prior fine-tuning, they still exhibit common limitations, in addition to inference high costs challenging their applicability in large-scale studies.