Identification and Measurement of Self-Technical Debt in Deep Learning Frameworks: A Systematic Review
Abstract
Technical Debt in software development refers to the consequences of decisions prioritizing quick solutions over optimal ones. This concept, introduced by Ward Cunningham in 1992, has been widely studied to improve software quality. In the context of deep learning, Technical Debt is also present due to the use of tools that, while facilitating model creation, may generate debt and negatively impact performance.
Through a three-phase process, this study presents a systematic literature review to identify the types of Technical Debt found in deep learning tools and the techniques used for its identification and measurement. The reviewed studies show that Technical Debt can arise in various development phases, such as design, requirements definition, testing, documentation, source code, algorithms, and compatibility. Other affected aspects include data, models, knowledge, and infrastructure. Several approaches have been used to identify technical debt, such as analyzing comments in static code, pull requests, and commits, applying manual techniques, text mining, neural networks, and natural language processing algorithms. In terms of measurement, statistical methods are predominantly used.
The findings of this review provide a better understanding of how Technical Debt impacts deep learning tools and offer a foundation for guiding future research on its management and mitigation in the development of systems within intelligent environments.
Downloads
References
R. Y. Choi, A. S. Coyner, J. Kalpathy-Cramer, M. F. Chiang, and J. Peter Campbell, “Introduction to machine learning, neural networks, and deep learning,” Transl Vis Sci Technol, vol. 9, no. 2, 2020, doi: 10.1167/tvst.9.2.14.
[2] R. Elshawi, A. Wahab, A. Barnawi, and S. Sakr, “DLBench: a comprehensive experimental evaluation of deep learning frameworks,” Cluster Comput, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 2017–2038, Sep. 2021, doi: 10.1007/s10586-021-03240-4.
[3] C. Janiesch, P. Zschech, and K. Heinrich, “Machine learning and deep learning,” Electronic Markets, vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 685–695, Sep. 2021, doi: 10.1007/s12525-021-00475-2.
[4] M. H. M. Noor and A. O. Ige, “A Survey on State-of-the-art Deep Learning Applications and Challenges,” Mar. 2024.
[5] N. L. Rane, S. K. Mallick, Ö. Kaya, and J. Rane, “Tools and frameworks for machine learning and deep learning: A review,” in Applied Machine Learning and Deep Learning: Architectures and Techniques, Deep Science Publishing, 2024. doi: 10.70593/978-81-981271-4-3_4.
- Conceptualization
- Data curation
- Formal Analysis
- Investigation
- Methodology
- Project administration
- Software
- Validation
- Visualization
- Writing - original draft
- Writing - review & editing
- Conceptualization
- Data curation
- Formal Analysis
- Investigation
- Methodology
- Project administration
- Resources
- Supervision
- Validation
- Visualization
- Writing - review & editing
- Conceptualization
- Formal Analysis
- Methodology
- Supervision
- Validation
- Visualization
- Writing - review & editing
- Conceptualization
- Formal Analysis
- Methodology
- Supervision
- Validation
- Visualization
- Writing - review & editing
Copyright (c) 2026 Innovation and Software
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
The authors exclusively grant the right to publish their article to the Innovation and Software Journal, which may formally edit or modify the approved text to comply with their own editorial standards and with universal grammatical standards, prior to publication; Likewise, our journal may translate the approved manuscripts into as many languages as it deems necessary and disseminates them in several countries, always giving public recognition to the author or authors of the research.
