An empirical study of testing machine learning in the wild
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recently, machine and deep learning (ML/DL) algorithms have been increasingly adopted in many software systems. Due to their inductive nature, ensuring the quality of these systems remains a significant challenge for the research community. Unlike traditional software built deductively by writing explicit rules, ML/DL systems infer rules from training data. Recent research in ML/DL quality assurance has adapted concepts from traditional software testing, such as mutation testing, to improve reliability. However, it is unclear if these proposed testing techniques are adopted in practice, or if new testing strategies have emerged from real-world ML deployments. There is little empirical evidence about the testing strategies. To fill this gap, we perform the first fine-grained empirical study on ML testing in the wild to identify the ML properties being tested, the testing strategies, and their implementation throughout the ML workflow. We conducted a mixed-methods study to understand ML software testing practices. We analyzed test files and cases from 11 open-source ML/DL projects on GitHub. Using open coding, we manually examined the testing strategies, tested ML properties, and implemented testing methods to understand their practical application in building and releasing ML/DL software systems. Our findings reveal several key insights: 1.) The most common testing strategies, accounting for less than 40%, are Grey-box and White-box methods, such as Negative Testing, Oracle Approximation and Statistical Testing. 2.) A wide range of 17 ML properties are tested, out of which only 20% to 30% are frequently tested, including Consistency, Correctness}, and Efficiency. 3.) Bias and Fairness is more tested in Recommendation, while Security & Privacy is tested in Computer Vision (CV) systems, Application Platforms, and Natural Language Processing (NLP) 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.
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 | 0.038 | 0.268 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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".