Understanding Practitioners Perspectives on Monitoring Machine Learning Systems
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Given the inherent non-deterministic nature of machine learning (ML) systems, their behavior in production environments can lead to unforeseen and potentially dangerous outcomes. For a timely detection of unwanted behavior and to prevent organizations from financial and reputational damage, monitoring these systems is essential. This paper explores the strategies, challenges, and improvement opportunities for monitoring ML systems from the practitioners perspective. We conducted a global survey of 91 ML practitioners to collect diverse insights into current monitoring practices for ML systems. We aim to complement existing research through our qualitative and quantitative analyses, focusing on prevalent runtime issues, industrial monitoring and mitigation practices, key challenges, and desired enhancements in future monitoring tools. Our findings reveal that practitioners frequently struggle with runtime issues related to declining model performance, exceeding latency, and security violations. While most prefer automated monitoring for its increased efficiency, many still rely on manual approaches due to the complexity or lack of appropriate automation solutions. Practitioners report that the initial setup and configuration of monitoring tools is often complicated and challenging, particularly when integrating with ML systems and setting alert thresholds. Moreover, practitioners find that monitoring adds extra workload, strains resources, and causes alert fatigue. The desired improvements from the practitioners perspective are: automated generation and deployment of monitors, improved support for performance and fairness monitoring, and recommendations for resolving runtime issues. These insights offer valuable guidance for the future development of ML monitoring tools that are better aligned with practitioners needs.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 18 of its 53 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 20 Aug 2025.
Builds on
18 of 53 references.
References · 18
- 2024A Survey on LLM-as-a-Judgecited by 1,423
- 2022Machine Learning Operations (MLOps): Overview, Definition, and Architecturecited by 128
- 2024Beyond Functional Correctness: Exploring Hallucinations in LLM-Generated Codecited by 107
- 2015The social dilemma of autonomous vehiclescited by 48
- 2020Towards CRISP-ML(Q): A Machine Learning Process Model with Quality Assurance Methodologycited by 41
- 2023Generative Artificial Intelligence for Software Engineering -- A Research Agendacited by 23
- 2021Characterizing and Detecting Mismatch in Machine-Learning-Enabled Systemscited by 19
- 2022A Human-Centric Take on Model Monitoringcited by 9
- 2023Requirements Practices and Gaps When Engineering Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence Systemscited by 8
- 2023Model-driven Engineering for Machine Learning Components: A Systematic Literature Reviewcited by 7
- 2022A monitoring framework for deployed machine learning models with supply chain examplescited by 5
- 2024"We Have No Idea How Models will Behave in Production until Production": How Engineers Operationalize Machine Learningcited by 5
6 more
- 2023An investigation of challenges encountered when specifying training data and runtime monitors for safety critical ML applicationscited by 4
- 2024Fairness Concerns in App Reviews: A Study on AI-based Mobile Appscited by 4
- 2024ML-Enabled Systems Model Deployment and Monitoring: Status Quo and Problemscited by 3
- 2024Insights on Microservice Architecture Through the Eyes of Industry Practitionerscited by 2
- 2021AI Total: Analyzing Security ML Models with Imperfect Data in Productioncited by 1
- 2024A Developer-Centric Study Exploring Mobile Application Security Practices and Challengescited by 1
Built on by
Not cited yet.