CRADLE: Cross-Backend Validation to Detect and Localize Bugs in Deep Learning Libraries
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Deep learning (DL) systems are widely used in domains including aircraft collision avoidance systems, Alzheimer's disease diagnosis, and autonomous driving cars. Despite the requirement for high reliability, DL systems are difficult to test. Existing DL testing work focuses on testing the DL models, not the implementations (e.g., DL software libraries) of the models. One key challenge of testing DL libraries is the difficulty of knowing the expected output of DL libraries given an input instance. Fortunately, there are multiple implementations of the same DL algorithms in different DL libraries. Thus, we propose CRADLE, a new approach that focuses on finding and localizing bugs in DL software libraries. CRADLE (1) performs cross-implementation inconsistency checking to detect bugs in DL libraries, and (2) leverages anomaly propagation tracking and analysis to localize faulty functions in DL libraries that cause the bugs. We evaluate CRADLE on three libraries (TensorFlow, CNTK, and Theano), 11 datasets (including ImageNet, MNIST, and KGS Go game), and 30 pre-trained models. CRADLE detects 12 bugs and 104 unique inconsistencies, and highlights functions relevant to the causes of inconsistencies for all 104 unique inconsistencies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it