Nasir U. Eisty

Shashank Bangalore Lakshman, Nasir U. Eisty

Internet of Things (IoT) has catapulted human ability to control our environments through ubiquitous sensing, communication, computation, and actuation. Over the past few years, IoT has joined forces with Machine Learning (ML) to embed deep intelligence at the far edge. TinyML (Tiny Machine Learning) has enabled the deployment of ML models for embedded vision on extremely lean edge hardware, bringing the power of IoT and ML together. However, TinyML powered embedded vision applications are still in a nascent stage, and they are just starting to scale to widespread real-world IoT deployment. To harness the true potential of IoT and ML, it is necessary to provide product developers with robust, easy-to-use software engineering (SE) frameworks and best practices that are customized for the unique challenges faced in TinyML engineering. Through this systematic literature review, we aggregated the key challenges reported by TinyML developers and identified state-of-art SE approaches in large-scale Computer Vision, Machine Learning, and Embedded Systems that can help address key challenges in TinyML based IoT embedded vision. In summary, our study draws synergies between SE expertise that embedded systems developers and ML developers have independently developed to help address the unique challenges in the engineering of TinyML based IoT embedded vision.

Nasir U. Eisty, Jeffrey C. Carver

Background: Research software is software developed by and/or used by researchers, across a wide variety of domains, to perform their research. Because of the complexity of research software, developers cannot conduct exhaustive testing. As a result, researchers have lower confidence in the correctness of the output of the software. Peer code review, a standard software engineering practice, has helped address this problem in other types of software. Aims: Peer code review is less prevalent in research software than it is in other types of software. In addition, the literature does not contain any studies about the use of peer code review in research software. Therefore, through analyzing developers perceptions, the goal of this work is to understand the current practice of peer code review in the development of research software, identify challenges and barriers associated with peer code review in research software, and present approaches to improve the peer code review in research software. Method: We conducted interviews and a community survey of research software developers to collect information about their current peer code review practices, difficulties they face, and how they address those difficulties. Results: We received 84 unique responses from the interviews and surveys. The results show that while research software teams review a large amount of their code, they lack formal process, proper organization, and adequate people to perform the reviews. Conclusions: Use of peer code review is promising for improving the quality of research software and thereby improving the trustworthiness of the underlying research results. In addition, by using peer code review, research software developers produce more readable and understandable code, which will be easier to maintain.