COMET: Coverage-guided Model Generation For Deep Learning Library Testing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent deep learning (DL) applications are mostly built on top of DL libraries. The quality assurance of these libraries is critical to the dependable deployment of DL applications. Techniques have been proposed to generate various DL models and apply them to test these libraries. However, their test effectiveness is constrained by the diversity of layer API calls in their generated DL models. Our study reveals that these techniques can cover at most 34.1% layer inputs, 25.9% layer parameter values, and 15.6% layer sequences. As a result, we find that many bugs arising from specific layer API calls (i.e., specific layer inputs, parameter values, or layer sequences) can be missed by existing techniques. Because of this limitation, we propose COMET to effectively generate DL models with diverse layer API calls for DL library testing. COMET: (1) designs a set of mutation operators and a coverage-based search algorithm to diversify layer inputs, layer parameter values, and layer sequences in DL models. (2) proposes a model synthesis method to boost the test efficiency without compromising the layer API call diversity. Our evaluation result shows that COMET outperforms baselines by covering twice as many layer inputs (69.7% vs. 34.1%), layer parameter values (50.2% vs. 25.9%), and layer sequences (39.0% vs. 15.6%) as those by the state-of-the-art. Moreover, COMET covers 3.4% more library branches than those by existing techniques. Finally, COMET detects 32 new bugs in the latest version of eight popular DL libraries, including TensorFlow and MXNet, with 21 of them confirmed by DL library developers and seven of those confirmed bugs have been fixed by developers.
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 | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".