On the Relation between Code Quality and Machine Learning Performance: A Large-scale Empirical Study
Updated 2 h ago · first seen 11 Sept 2026
paper_01M294FPNZ5M82160GZS1R6H3C
- Published
- 11 Sept 2026
- T1 · 2 h ago
- arXiv
- 2609.10610
- T1 · 2 h ago
- Category
- cs.SE
- T1 · 2 h ago
Abstract
Context: Computational notebooks are the standard environment for machine learning (ML) development. Within the ML community, model performance is often the primary considered metric, and code quality is treated as a secondary concern. This prioritization relies on a largely untested assumption that code quality and ML performance are unrelated. Practitioners also reuse existing code that may come from notebooks selected through social signals (popularity, author expertise) whose reliability as quality proxies has never been assessed. Objective: We empirically investigated the relationship between code quality and ML performance in notebooks, and evaluated whether popularity and author expertise give indication on code quality or performance. Method: We conducted a large-scale empirical study of 265,363 Python notebooks submitted to Kaggle competitions. We assessed code quality with two static analysis tools: Pylint, capturing general Python code quality, and SonarQube, configured with a profile of 34 rules targeting data-science and ML-specific practices. Results: The relationship between code quality and performance depends on the notion of quality considered. General Python code quality is decoupled from ML performance, showing negligible or non-significant correlations across all observations. In contrast, ML-specific violations exhibit a consistent, small negative association with performance that persists across all observations. The popularity of a notebook does not give information on the code quality or performance. Code expertise provides no information on quality or performance, but competition expertise correlates with better performance, fewer ML-specific violations, and slightly more Python errors and refactoring violations.
Authors 4
Marius Mignard (CRIStAL), Steven Costiou (CRIStAL), Anne Etien (CRIStAL, EVREF)
Specification
- Official page
Source:arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1observed 2 h agohigh
- Arxiv announce type
- cross
Source:arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1observed 2 h agohigh
- arXiv id
- 2609.10610
Source:arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1observed 2 h agohigh
- Categories
- cs.SE, cs.LG
Source:arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1observed 2 h agohigh
Source:arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1observed 2 h agohigh
- Primary category
- cs.SE
Source:arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1observed 2 h agohigh
- Published
- 11 Sept 2026
Source:arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1observed 2 h agohigh
Each value shows its source, tier and observation time. Conflicting claims are kept side by side and flagged — never averaged. How AI Atlas records facts →
Provenance
Attributed facts
9
Source tiers
T19
Freshest observation
2 h ago
Conflicts
None
No models linked to this paper yet.
As of
Rewind the record: see this entity's attributes exactly as AI Atlas knew them on a given day.
Claim history · Abstract
Abstractabstract1
| Value | Valid from → to | Status | Source | Confidence | Extractor |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Context: Computational notebooks are the standard environment for machine learning (ML) development. Within the ML community, model performance is often the primary considered metric, and code quality is treated as a secondary concern. This prioritization relies on a largely untested assumption that code quality and ML performance are unrelated. Practitioners also reuse existing code that may come from notebooks selected through social signals (popularity, author expertise) whose reliability as quality proxies has never been assessed. Objective: We empirically investigated the relationship between code quality and ML performance in notebooks, and evaluated whether popularity and author expertise give indication on code quality or performance. Method: We conducted a large-scale empirical study of 265,363 Python notebooks submitted to Kaggle competitions. We assessed code quality with two static analysis tools: Pylint, capturing general Python code quality, and SonarQube, configured with a profile of 34 rules targeting data-science and ML-specific practices. Results: The relationship between code quality and performance depends on the notion of quality considered. General Python code quality is decoupled from ML performance, showing negligible or non-significant correlations across all observations. In contrast, ML-specific violations exhibit a consistent, small negative association with performance that persists across all observations. The popularity of a notebook does not give information on the code quality or performance. Code expertise provides no information on quality or performance, but competition expertise correlates with better performance, fewer ML-specific violations, and slightly more Python errors and refactoring violations. | → current | current | arXiv (Atom API + RSS)T1 | high | deterministic |
Claims are temporal and append-only: a new observation closes the previous claim (valid_to) instead of overwriting it. Conflicting claims from different sources are kept side by side and flagged — never averaged. Methodology →
- New paperPaperOn the Relation between Code Quality and Machine Learning Performance: A Large-scale Empirical Study
New paper: On the Relation between Code Quality and Machine Learning Performance: A Large-scale Empirical Study
arxiv
| Source | Document | Type | Tier | Last observed | Snapshots |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| arXiv (Atom API + RSS) | rss.arxiv.org/rss/cs.LG | feed | T1· Official | 9 min ago | 1 |
Tier 1 = official/primary, 2 = quality secondary, 3 = community, 4 = unverified. Every snapshot is archived; see all sources and the methodology.