Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2508.01430

From Technical Excellence to Practical Adoption: Lessons Learned Building an ML-Enhanced Trace Analysis Tool

Kaveh Shahedi·Matthew Khouzam·Heng Li·Maxime Lamothe·Foutse Khomh
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

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.

Explore related subjects

cs.SE

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Kaveh Shahedi, Matthew Khouzam, Heng Li, Maxime Lamothe, Foutse Khomh. 2025-08-02. From Technical Excellence to Practical Adoption: Lessons Learned Building an ML-Enhanced Trace Analysis Tool. https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.01430

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Is Vibe Coding Safe? Benchmarking Vulnerability of Agent-Generated Code in Real-World Tasks

Vibe coding is a new software development paradigm in which human engineers prompt a large language model (LLM) agent to complete complex coding tasks with little supervision. Although vibe coding is increasingly adopted, is the generated code really safe to deploy in production? To investigate this question, we propose SUSVIBES, a benchmark consisting of 186 feature-request software engineering tasks from real-world open-source projects, for which, human programmers committed vulnerable implementations. We evaluate 12 widely used coding agentic settings with frontier models on the benchmark. Disturbingly, all agents perform poorly in terms of software security. Although 57% of the solutions from SWE-Agent with Claude 4 Sonnet are functionally correct, only 11.8% are secure. Further experiments demonstrate that preliminary security strategies, such as augmenting the feature request with vulnerability hints, cannot mitigate these security issues. Our findings raise serious concerns about the widespread adoption of vibe coding, particularly in security-sensitive applications. The code and dataset are available at https://github.com/LeiLiLab/susvibes. The leaderboard is at https://leililab.github.io/susvibes-leaderboard.

cs.SE↗
arXiv2026

Why3-py: A Tool for Formal Verification of Hypothesis Testing and Meta-Analysis in Python

The reproducibility crisis in scientific research has received widespread recognition, thereby increasing the importance of meta-analyses that integrate statistical analyses from multiple studies. However, statistical methods often have ambiguous and implicit underlying assumptions, which can lead to their erroneous applications and interpretations. To address this issue, we propose a formal verification framework for statistical Python programs. Specifically, we present Why3-py, a Python front-end for the Why3 verification platform that transforms Python code into verification-oriented WhyML representations, addressing the challenges arising from Python's dynamic typing and runtime polymorphism. Furthermore, we extend the StatWhy tool to support the verification of meta-analysis methods. These tools enable meta-analysts to identify overlooked assumptions and misuse of analyses, and to verify the correct use of hypothesis testing and meta-analysis methods in Python code.

cs.SE↗
arXiv2026

What is the Difference Between Me and You? Benchmarking the Quality Gap Between Human-Written and AI-Generated Code

AI coding assistants are becoming co-authors of production software, yet their evaluation centers on functional correctness, leaving open whether their code differs from human code in the quality dimensions dominating lifecycle cost. We compare human-written and AI-generated code at scale: 787,562 function pairs across Python, Java, and C, each human function mined from open-source repositories paired with implementations generated from its docstring by three AI assistants (OpenAI GPT models, DeepSeek-Coder, Qwen2.5-Coder). We characterize structural complexity and statistical naturalness, and map static-analysis findings onto Orthogonal Defect Classification for defects and the Common Weakness Enumeration for vulnerabilities, making authors and languages directly comparable. AI-generated code is structurally compressed and stylistically templated: roughly half the size and branching of human code, clustering apart at the style level. Defect profiles differ in kind: human code concentrates issues of mature codebases, AI code repetitive boilerplate; security is language-dependent, with LLMs producing more, and more severe, findings in Python and Java but fewer high-severity memory-safety findings than humans in C. Once size is controlled for, complexity metrics carry little signal, while naturalness separates authors. Finally, we release CQBench, a benchmark of 27,346 issue-prone tasks with baselines and an evaluation pipeline for quality assurance and security testing.

cs.SE↗