Perspective of Software Engineering Researchers on Machine Learning Practices Regarding Research, Review, and Education

The integration of machine learning (ML) into complex software systems has increased challenges in collaboration and communication (CoCo) of the teams building these systems. ML engineering (MLE) teams often involve diverse roles, ML engineers, data scientists, software engineers, and domain experts, each bringing unique goals, experiences, and jargon. These interdisciplinary dynamics can make it challenging to deploy, reproduce, and maintain ML-enabled systems over the long term. Previous studies have uncovered several CoCo challenges and practices, but most have focused on software-centric companies, leaving limited empirical understanding of how these dynamics unfold in hardware-centric contexts. In hardware-centric environments, CoCo challenges are shaped by additional constraints such as strict data governance, long development cycles, and tight coupling with physical processes, which amplify coordination complexity and reduce flexibility. To strengthen empirical understanding in such settings, we present a qualitative investigation of MLE teams within a global semiconductor company, where ML-enabled systems and manufacturing processes introduce additional complexity. We interviewed 12 practitioners regarding CoCo practices, tools, challenges, and approaches. Through analysis, we identified 16 recurring challenges, with unclear roles and responsibilities emerging as the most critical, and common practices and recommendations practitioners considered effective in mitigating CoCo problems. While grounded in a single organizational context, our findings align with known issues in interdisciplinary ML-enabled systems development, but also demonstrate how these challenges manifest differently under hardware-driven constraints. Our results highlight directions for future research and tool support to strengthen CoCo in MLE projects and ensure the success of ML-enabled systems.

The rise of Software Engineering (SE) agents, i.e., LLM-based agents that can understand large codebases and carry out engineering tasks with limited human intervention, has been marked by rapid advances and adoption, but little is known about how developers build these systems in practice: existing studies mine repositories or examine deployment, but few investigate how SE agents are constructed. Through semi-structured interviews with 20 practitioners from 12 organizations and an online survey of 80 practitioners, this paper is the first to study how SE processes are changing in the development of SE agents and what challenges developers face. We find that as implementation becomes cheaper, bottlenecks shift rather than disappear: long-standing non-coding work such as requirements, coordination, review, and deployment becomes more visible, while reviewing and evaluating agent output becomes new and central. We characterize a seven-stage workflow and a shift toward evaluation-driven development, in which evaluation steers iteration and specifications become versioned artifacts read by both humans and agents. We further identify six challenges that teams face, together with the practices they adopt to address them, including unreliable evaluation signals, comprehension debt as code outpaces understanding, and behavioral changes introduced by provider-side model updates.

Teaching Software Engineering for AI-enabled systems entails addressing the integration of AI components within full-scale software architectures under realistic constraints. While machine learning courses emphasize model development, students often lack experience in architectural design, deployment, and monitoring of AI-enabled systems. Empirical evaluations of such system-oriented AI courses remain limited. This paper reflects on the design and implementation of a project-based master's-level course titled AI Algorithms: Theory and Engineering, at the University of Bremen, in which students developed a movie recommendation system while making architectural design decisions to address challenges related to scalability, deployment, and evolving requirements. We conducted a mixed-methods study combining analyses of student submissions and questionnaire responses to investigate integration challenges, learning outcomes, and opportunities for improvement. Our results indicate persistent difficulties in early architectural decisions, heterogeneous ML integration, evolving requirements, and data management, largely due to uneven ML and software engineering expertise. From the educator's perspective, the course fostered system-level reasoning and strengthened awareness of data-centric ML practices in AI-enabled systems.