Evaluating the Robustness of Test Selection Methods for Deep Neural Networks

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2308.01314v1
• Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2023 19:17:49 GMT
• Title: Evaluating the Robustness of Test Selection Methods for Deep Neural Networks
• Authors: Qiang Hu, Yuejun Guo, Xiaofei Xie, Maxime Cordy, Wei Ma, Mike Papadakis and Yves Le Traon
• Abstract summary: Testing deep learning-based systems is crucial but challenging due to the required time and labor for labeling collected raw data. To alleviate the labeling effort, multiple test selection methods have been proposed where only a subset of test data needs to be labeled. This paper explores when and to what extent test selection methods fail for testing.
• Score: 32.01355605506855
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: Testing deep learning-based systems is crucial but challenging due to the required time and labor for labeling collected raw data. To alleviate the labeling effort, multiple test selection methods have been proposed where only a subset of test data needs to be labeled while satisfying testing requirements. However, we observe that such methods with reported promising results are only evaluated under simple scenarios, e.g., testing on original test data. This brings a question to us: are they always reliable? In this paper, we explore when and to what extent test selection methods fail for testing. Specifically, first, we identify potential pitfalls of 11 selection methods from top-tier venues based on their construction. Second, we conduct a study on five datasets with two model architectures per dataset to empirically confirm the existence of these pitfalls. Furthermore, we demonstrate how pitfalls can break the reliability of these methods. Concretely, methods for fault detection suffer from test data that are: 1) correctly classified but uncertain, or 2) misclassified but confident. Remarkably, the test relative coverage achieved by such methods drops by up to 86.85%. On the other hand, methods for performance estimation are sensitive to the choice of intermediate-layer output. The effectiveness of such methods can be even worse than random selection when using an inappropriate layer.

Related papers

• Conservative Prediction via Data-Driven Confidence Minimization [70.93946578046003]
  In safety-critical applications of machine learning, it is often desirable for a model to be conservative. We propose the Data-Driven Confidence Minimization framework, which minimizes confidence on an uncertainty dataset.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-08T07:05:36Z)
• Sequential Kernelized Independence Testing [101.22966794822084]
  We design sequential kernelized independence tests inspired by kernelized dependence measures. We demonstrate the power of our approaches on both simulated and real data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-12-14T18:08:42Z)
• Model-Free Sequential Testing for Conditional Independence via Testing by Betting [8.293345261434943]
  The proposed test allows researchers to analyze an incoming i.i.d. data stream with any arbitrary dependency structure. We allow the processing of data points online as soon as they arrive and stop data acquisition once significant results are detected.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-01T20:05:33Z)
• Efficient Testing of Deep Neural Networks via Decision Boundary Analysis [28.868479656437145]
  We propose a novel technique, named Aries, that can estimate the performance of DNNs on new unlabeled data. The estimated accuracy by Aries is only 0.03% -- 2.60% (on average 0.61%) off the true accuracy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-07-22T08:39:10Z)
• CAFA: Class-Aware Feature Alignment for Test-Time Adaptation [50.26963784271912]
  Test-time adaptation (TTA) aims to address this challenge by adapting a model to unlabeled data at test time. We propose a simple yet effective feature alignment loss, termed as Class-Aware Feature Alignment (CAFA), which simultaneously encourages a model to learn target representations in a class-discriminative manner.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-06-01T03:02:07Z)
• Detecting Errors and Estimating Accuracy on Unlabeled Data with Self-training Ensembles [38.23896575179384]
  We propose a principled and practically effective framework that simultaneously addresses the two tasks. One instantiation reduces the estimation error for unsupervised accuracy estimation by at least 70% and improves the F1 score for error detection by at least 4.7%. On iWildCam, one instantiation reduces the estimation error for unsupervised accuracy estimation by at least 70% and improves the F1 score for error detection by at least 4.7%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-29T21:32:51Z)
• Towards Reducing Labeling Cost in Deep Object Detection [61.010693873330446]
  We propose a unified framework for active learning, that considers both the uncertainty and the robustness of the detector. Our method is able to pseudo-label the very confident predictions, suppressing a potential distribution drift.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-06-22T16:53:09Z)
• TestRank: Bringing Order into Unlabeled Test Instances for Deep Learning Tasks [14.547623982073475]
  Deep learning systems are notoriously difficult to test and debug. It is essential to conduct test selection and label only those selected "high quality" bug-revealing test inputs for test cost reduction. We propose a novel test prioritization technique that brings order into the unlabeled test instances according to their bug-revealing capabilities, namely TestRank.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-05-21T03:41:10Z)
• Double Perturbation: On the Robustness of Robustness and Counterfactual Bias Evaluation [109.06060143938052]
  We propose a "double perturbation" framework to uncover model weaknesses beyond the test dataset. We apply this framework to study two perturbation-based approaches that are used to analyze models' robustness and counterfactual bias in English.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-04-12T06:57:36Z)
• Active Testing: Sample-Efficient Model Evaluation [39.200332879659456]
  We introduce active testing: a new framework for sample-efficient model evaluation. Active testing addresses this by carefully selecting the test points to label. We show how to remove that bias while reducing the variance of the estimator.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-03-09T10:20:49Z)
• Cross-validation Confidence Intervals for Test Error [83.67415139421448]
  This work develops central limit theorems for crossvalidation and consistent estimators of its variance under weak stability conditions on the learning algorithm. Results are the first of their kind for the popular choice of leave-one-out cross-validation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-07-24T17:40:06Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.