Models of Computational Profiles to Study the Likelihood of DNN Metamorphic Test Cases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Neural network test cases are meant to exercise different reasoning paths in an architecture and used to validate the prediction outcomes. In this paper, we introduce "computational profiles" as vectors of neuron activation levels. We investigate the distribution of computational profile likelihood of metamorphic test cases with respect to the likelihood distributions of training, test and error control cases. We estimate the non-parametric probability densities of neuron activation levels for each distinct output class. Probabilities are inferred using training cases only, without any additional knowledge about metamorphic test cases. Experiments are performed by training a network on the MNIST Fashion library of images and comparing prediction likelihoods with those obtained from error control-data and from metamorphic test cases. Experimental results show that the distributions of computational profile likelihood for training and test cases are somehow similar, while the distribution of the random-noise control-data is always remarkably lower than the observed one for the training and testing sets. In contrast, metamorphic test cases show a prediction likelihood that lies in an extended range with respect to training, tests, and random noise. Moreover, the presented approach allows the independent assessment of different training classes and experiments to show that some of the classes are more sensitive to misclassifying metamorphic test cases than other classes. In conclusion, metamorphic test cases represent very aggressive tests for neural network architectures. Furthermore, since metamorphic test cases force a network to misclassify those inputs whose likelihood is similar to that of training cases, they could also be considered as adversarial attacks that evade defenses based on computational profile likelihood evaluation.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".