On the Relation between Code Quality and Machine Learning Performance: A Large-scale Empirical Study — Paper

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: arxiv.org/abs/2609.10610
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
PDF: arxiv.org/pdf/2609.10610
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.

Authors: Marius Mignard (CRIStAL), Steven Costiou (CRIStAL), Anne Etien (CRIStAL

As of

Rewind the record: see this entity's attributes exactly as AI Atlas knew them on a given day.

Claim history · Primary category

1 claims · 1 propertiesShow all properties

Primary categoryprimary_category1

Claim history for Primary category
Value	Valid from → to	Status	Source	Confidence	Extractor
cs.SE	11 Sept 2026 21:02 UTC → 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 →

11 Sept 2026
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
rss.arxiv.org

Full timeline →

Source documents
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.