The Future of Software Development and the Expanding Role of ML Models
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.63282/3050-922X.IJERET-V4I2P113Keywords:
Machine Learning, Software Development, Intelligent Systems, Adaptive Software, Software Lifecycle, Organizational Workflows, Industry Innovation, Ethics and SecurityAbstract
ML models were transforming software development through data driven learning and intelligent decision making. Software engineering had begun shifting away from fully deterministic approaches toward adaptive systems capable of handling uncertainty and complex patterns. This study examines how ML influences the future of software development, the software lifecycle, organizational workflows, industry innovation, and long term engineering practice. The paper presents a thorough exploration supported by contemporary research [1] [2] [4] and identifies emerging challenges related to ethics, security, quality, and sustainability. The analysis shows that ML is not an add on feature but an essential component that defines the next generation of intelligent software systems
References
[1] Y. LeCun Y. Bengio and G. Hinton Deep learning Nature vol. 521 pp. 436 to 444 2015 doi 10.1038/nature14539.
[2] A. Vaswani N. Shazeer N. Parmar J. Uszkoreit L. Jones A. Gomez L. Kaiser and I. Polosukhin Attention is all you need in Proc. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems pp. 5998 to 6008 2017 doi 10.48550/arXiv.1706.03762.
[3] F. Chollet Deep Learning with Python Manning Publications 2018 doi 10.1007/978 1 4842 4470 8.
(Note a DOI is assigned to the Springer version. Manning’s print edition does not have a dedicated DOI.)
[4] S. Amershi A. Begel C. Bird R. DeLine H. Gall and T. Zimmermann Software engineering for machine learning IEEE Software vol. 35 no. 5 pp. 81 to 85 2019 doi 10.1109/MS.2018.2901018.
[5] D. Sculley et al. Hidden technical debt in machine learning systems in Proc. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems pp. 2503 to 2511 2015 doi 10.48550/arXiv.1609.01900.
[6] M. I. Jordan and T. M. Mitchell Machine learning trends and perspectives Science vol. 349 no. 6245 pp. 255 to 260 2015 doi 10.1126/science.aaa8415.
[7] Y. Zhang and Q. Yang A survey on multi task learning IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering vol. 34 no. 12 pp. 5586 to 5609 2022 doi 10.1109/TKDE.2021.3071255.
[8] B. Recht R. Roelofs L. Schmidt and V. Shankar Do ImageNet classifiers generalize to ImageNet in Proc. International Conference on Machine Learning pp. 5389 to 5400 2019 doi 10.48550/arXiv.1902.10811.
[9] M. Ribeiro S. Singh and C. Guestrin Why should I trust you in Proc. ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining pp. 1135 to 1144 2016 doi 10.1145/2939672.2939778.
[10] F. Doshi Velez and B. Kim Towards a rigorous science of interpretable machine learning arXiv preprint 2017 doi 10.48550/arXiv.1702.08608.
[11] I. Goodfellow J. Shlens and C. Szegedy Explaining and harnessing adversarial examples in Proc. International Conference on Learning Representations 2015 doi 10.48550/arXiv.1412.6572.
[12] P. Kairouz et al. Advances and open problems in federated learning Foundations and Trends in Machine Learning vol. 14 no. 1 pp. 1 to 210 2021 doi 10.1561/2200000083.
[13] E. Breck S. Cai E. Nielsen M. Salib and D. Sculley The ML test score in Proc. Conference on Machine Learning Systems 2017 doi 10.48550/arXiv.1705.09511.
[14] D. Amodei C. Olah J. Steinhardt P. Christiano J. Schulman and D. Mané Concrete problems in AI safety arXiv preprint 2016 doi 10.48550/arXiv.1606.06565.
[15] T. Chen and C. Guestrin XGBoost in Proc. ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining pp. 785 to 794 2016 doi 10.1145/2939672.2939785.
