Aries: Efficient Testing of Deep Neural Networks via Labeling-Free Accuracy Estimation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Deep learning (DL) plays a more and more important role in our daily life due to its competitive performance in industrial application domains. As the core of DL-enabled systems, deep neural networks (DNNs) need to be carefully evaluated to ensure the produced models match the expected requirements. In practice, the de facto standard to assess the quality of DNNs in the industry is to check their performance (accuracy) on a collected set of labeled test data. However, preparing such labeled data is often not easy partly because of the huge labeling effort, i.e., data labeling is labor-intensive, especially with the massive new incoming unlabeled data every day. Recent studies show that test selection for DNN is a promising direction that tackles this issue by selecting minimal representative data to label and using these data to assess the model. However, it still requires human effort and cannot be automatic. In this paper, we propose a novel technique, named Aries, that can estimate the performance of DNNs on new unlabeled data using only the information obtained from the original test data. The key insight behind our technique is that the model should have similar prediction accuracy on the data which have similar distances to the decision boundary. We performed a large-scale evaluation of our technique on two famous datasets, CIFAR-10 and Tiny-ImageNet, four widely studied DNN models including ResNetl0l and DenseNetl21, and 13 types of data transformation methods. Results show that the estimated accuracy by Aries is only 0.03% - 2.60% off the true accuracy. Besides, Aries also outperforms the state-of-the-art labeling-free methods in 50 out of 52 cases and selection-labeling-based methods in 96 out of 128 cases.
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 | 0.009 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".