arXiv ScienceSearch

arXiv · 2608.28396

Sustainability of Open-Source Machine Learning Robustness Assessment Tools: A Repository Mining Study

Abstract

Robustness evaluation is essential for deploying machine-learning (ML) systems in real-world settings, where models may face adversarial perturbations, distribution shifts, and other operational stressors. Many open-source tools, including Adversarial Robustness Toolbox, Foolbox, and Robustness Gym, support robustness testing and evaluation. However, little is known about how these tools are maintained, publicly engaged with, and sustained over time, even though practitioners may rely on them to select evaluation dependencies, reproduce robustness assessments, and provide evidence for AI assurance. We present an empirical study of the open-source robustness tooling ecosystem. Starting from a curated seed set derived from prior work, we systematically searched GitHub and identified 28 robustness-tool repositories. We analyzed repository artifacts to characterize observable community engagement, maintenance activity, and project longevity using established software-engineering metrics. Our results show that engagement and maintenance are unevenly distributed, with sustained activity concentrated in a small subset of repositories. At the data collection date of January 21, 2026, five repositories were classified as active, 22 as inactive, and one as archived. These findings highlight the need to treat robustness tools as evolving software systems.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Joshua Owotogbe, Indika Kumara, Willem-Jan van den Heuvel, Damian Tamburri. 2026-08-28. Sustainability of Open-Source Machine Learning Robustness Assessment Tools: A Repository Mining Study. https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.28396

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

Discover connections

Connections use source metadata and explicit phrase matches, not verified experimental comparisons.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

From Prompting to Engineering: A Research Agenda for Prompt Engineering in Software Engineering

Prompt engineering is increasingly used across Software Engineering (SE) activities, including requirements analysis, coding, testing, documentation, repository analysis, and planning. Yet prompts and related instruction artifacts are often created and evolved through task-specific and informal practices, with limited support for their systematic evaluation, management, traceability, and governance. To examine how SE can contribute to the maturation of these practices, we organized a structured community discussion at the First International Workshop on Empirical Prompt Engineering for Software Engineering (PROMPT-SE), co-located with EASE 2026. Participants discussed current prompting practices, challenges to their adoption and evaluation, and future directions for integrating prompt engineering into software development. We synthesized these discussions into five areas: prompt artifacts and standardization; evaluation and benchmarking; lifecycle integration; human-AI collaboration and skills; and governance, privacy, and technical debt. Based on these areas, we outline a research agenda to move prompt engineering from predominantly ad hoc interactions toward more systematic, maintainable, evaluable, traceable, and governable SE practices.

cs.SE

Antipatterns in AI-assisted Qualitative Data Analysis: A Catalog of Temptations and Pitfalls for Software Engineering Researchers

AI-assisted qualitative data analysis (QDA) offers unprecedented opportunities to streamline software engineering (SE) research, yet uncritical use risks compromising analytical rigor and flooding the field with accelerated production of low-quality research. While tactical best practices will naturally evolve over time, SE researchers currently lack strategic guidance to identify and mitigate methodological risks when attempting AI-assisted QDA. Based on our decades of qualitative SE research expertise and experience combined with an understanding of the emerging landscape of AI-assisted QDA, this paper presents a catalog of antipatterns in AI-assisted QDA - a set of assumptions and practices that initially appear advantageous but ultimately undermine analytical rigor and validity. The antipatterns are grouped into three categories reflecting escalating impact: Dangerous Drivers, Operational Missteps, and Analytical Failures. As more SE researchers attempt AI-assisted QDA, these antipatterns will help them identify and avoid common temptations and pitfalls, while reviewers can be equipped with the vocabulary and criteria to call out problematic and failed practice. Ultimately, this catalog of antipatterns can serve as a stepping stone in our responsible methodological evolution toward principled and meaningful human-AI collaboration in qualitative research.

cs.SE

What Does an Evaluation License? A Commit-Bound Census of Claim Replay in Inspect Evals

Benchmarks can run without determining what their results license. We freeze a large evaluation collection and attempt to replay its historical claims. Most units stop because the evidence required for replay is not bound. Where replay is possible, different claims remain stable at different resolutions. We make this otherwise implicit inference step explicit and executable.

cs.SE