Rethinking Data Quality for AI-Driven Systems: Evidence from Practitioner Interviews

arXiv:2609.31191v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Data quality research has usually treated data as an input that is stored, processed, and validated. In AI-driven software-intensive systems, data also shapes model behavior, evaluation, and lawful use. Empirical evidence remains limited on how practitioners define, assess, and manage quality under these conditions. We interviewed 16 practitioners from nine organizations and analyzed the transcripts using reflexive thematic analysis and developed six themes from participants' accounts. In AI systems, traceability shifted from modular debugging to attributing model behavior, while using models as quality assessors introduced circularity. Agent context and memory became data objects, and synthetic and pseudo-labeled data made authenticity a quality concern. In foundation-model development, lawfulness became a gate for training data, while representativeness was judged through coverage of situations in which the system must behave safely. Prior ML research examines many of these problems separately. Our study provides a practitioner-grounded account of how they are encountered together as an engineering and organizational concern. We also interpret five recurring conditions as helping explain how the themes relate to reduced trust in data and AI outcomes. We synthesize these findings through lifecycle assurance: a conceptual framing focused on producing evidence that data can support a specific AI claim when its influence may be embedded in model behavior, model-based judgments, or agent actions.

Abstract:Data quality research has usually treated data as an input that is stored, processed, and validated. In AI-driven software-intensive systems, data also shapes model behavior, evaluation, and lawful use. Empirical evidence remains limited on how practitioners define, assess, and manage quality under these conditions. We interviewed 16 practitioners from nine organizations and analyzed the transcripts using reflexive thematic analysis and developed six themes from participants' accounts. In AI systems, traceability shifted from modular debugging to attributing model behavior, while using models as quality assessors introduced circularity. Agent context and memory became data objects, and synthetic and pseudo-labeled data made authenticity a quality concern. In foundation-model development, lawfulness became a gate for training data, while representativeness was judged through coverage of situations in which the system must behave safely. Prior ML research examines many of these problems separately. Our study provides a practitioner-grounded account of how they are encountered together as an engineering and organizational concern. We also interpret five recurring conditions as helping explain how the themes relate to reduced trust in data and AI outcomes. We synthesize these findings through lifecycle assurance: a conceptual framing focused on producing evidence that data can support a specific AI claim when its influence may be embedded in model behavior, model-based judgments, or agent actions.

Software Engineering (cs.SE); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)

arXiv:2609.31191 [cs.SE]

(or arXiv:2609.31191v1 [cs.SE] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.31191 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

aiqbench analysis

Rethinking Data Quality for AI-Driven Systems: Evidence from Practitioner Interviews

Related coverage