MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2954903132 · doi:10.1109/icse.2019.00107

CRADLE: Cross-Backend Validation to Detect and Localize Bugs in Deep Learning Libraries

2019· article· en· W2954903132 on OpenAlexafffund
Hung Viet Pham, Thibaud Lutellier, Weizhen Qi, Lin Tan

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdversarial Robustness in Machine Learning
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsComputer scienceMNIST databaseImplementationDeep learningArtificial intelligenceSoftware bugSoftwareReliability (semiconductor)Machine learningAnomaly detectionKey (lock)Software engineeringProgramming languageOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.038
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.058

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.038
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0050.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.256 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations191
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdversarial Robustness in Machine LearningFrench-language works237,207