Continuous Integration Pipelines for Lifecycle Management of Large Language Models

  • Authors

    • Dr. Hawa Mohamed Department of Information Technology, Mogadishu Digital University, Somalia. Author

    DOI:

    https://doi.org/10.67228/30713315/IJAIDT-2019PII5C9R

    Published 09-04-2019

  • Large Language Models, Continuous Integration, Mlops, Model Lifecycle Management, Model Evaluation, Responsible Ai, Automation Pipelines, Model Versioning, Data Quality, Ai Governance

    Issue

    Section

    Articles

    How to Cite

    [1]
    H. Mohamed, “Continuous Integration Pipelines for Lifecycle Management of Large Language Models”, IJAIDT, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 01–19, Sep. 2019, doi: 10.67228/30713315/IJAIDT-2019PII5C9R.
  • Abstract

    The rapid evolution of large language models (LLMs) has introduced new challenges in model development, deployment, monitoring, and governance. Traditional software-focused Continuous Integration (CI) pipelines are insufficient for managing the iterative and data-intensive lifecycle of LLMs, which require continuous data validation, model retraining, bias and safety auditing, reproducibility checks, and scalable deployment. This paper proposes a comprehensive CI pipeline architecture tailored to the unique requirements of LLM lifecycle management. The framework integrates automated data quality assessment, modular training workflows, version-controlled model artifacts, continuous evaluation against multi-dimensional metrics, and responsible AI checks including fairness, robustness, and alignment. We discuss implementation patterns using modern MLOps tooling, highlight operational challenges, and present best practices for ensuring reliability, traceability, and ethical compliance in LLM-centric systems. The proposed approach facilitates faster iteration cycles, safer model updates, and more efficient long-term governance of LLM deployments.

  • References

    [1] Amershi, S., et al. (2019). Software Engineering for Machine Learning: A Case Study. Proceedings of the IEEE/ACM 41st International Conference on Software Engineering.

    [2] Breck, E., Cai, S., Nielsen, E., Salib, M., & Sculley, D. (2017). The ML Test Score: A Rubric for ML Production Readiness and Technical Debt Reduction. Proceedings of IEEE Big Data.

    [3] Sculley, D., et al. (2015). Hidden Technical Debt in Machine Learning Systems. Proceedings of NeurIPS.

    [4] Sato, D., et al. (2018). Continuous Delivery for Machine Learning Systems. (industry whitepaper, ThoughtWorks).

    [5] Breck, E., Cai, S., Nielsen, E., Salib, M., & Sculley, D. (2017). The ML Test Score: A Rubric for ML Production Readiness. Google Research.

    [6] Sculley, D., Holt, G., Golovin, D., et al. (2015). Hidden Technical Debt in Machine Learning Systems. NIPS.

    [7] Amershi, S., Begel, A., Bird, C., et al. (2019). Software Engineering for Machine Learning: A Case Study. ICSE 2019.

    [8] Shahin, M., Babar, M. A., & Zhu, L. (2017). Continuous Integration, Delivery and Deployment: A Systematic Review. arXiv.

    [9] Fischer, M. J., & Schneider, M. (2018). Applying Machine Learning to Continuous Delivery. IEEE ICSME 2018, pp. 415–419.

    [10] Alshahrani, S. R., Al-Ajlan, A., & Al-Mansour, A. (2018). Continuous Integration and Continuous Delivery in Cloud Computing. Journal of Cloud Computing, 7(1), 1–16.

  • Downloads