DeepEvolution: A Search-Based Testing Approach for Deep Neural Networks
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
The increasing inclusion of Deep Learning (DL) models in safety-critical systems such as autonomous vehicles have led to the development of multiple model-based DL testing techniques. One common denominator of these testing techniques is the automated generation of test cases, e.g., new inputs transformed from the original training data with the aim to optimize some test adequacy criteria. So far, the effectiveness of these approaches has been hindered by their reliance on random fuzzing or transformations that do not always produce test cases with a good diversity. To overcome these limitations, we propose, DeepEvolution, a novel search-based approach for testing DL models that relies on metaheuristics to ensure a maximum diversity in generated test cases. We assess the effectiveness of DeepEvolution in testing computer-vision DL models and found that it significantly increases the neuronal coverage of generated test cases. Moreover, using DeepEvolution, we could successfully find several corner-case behaviors. Finally, DeepEvolution outperformed Tensorfuzz (a coverage-guided fuzzing tool developed at Google Brain) in detecting latent defects introduced during the quantization of the models. These results suggest that search-based approaches can help build effective testing tools for DL systems.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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