DeepGD: A Multi-Objective Black-Box Test Selection 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
Deep neural networks (DNNs) are widely used in various application domains such as image processing, speech recognition, and natural language processing. However, testing DNN models may be challenging due to the complexity and size of their input domain. In particular, testing DNN models often requires generating or exploring large unlabeled datasets. In practice, DNN test oracles, which identify the correct outputs for inputs, often require expensive manual effort to label test data, possibly involving multiple experts to ensure labeling correctness. In this article, we propose DeepGD , a black-box multi-objective test selection approach for DNN models. It reduces the cost of labeling by prioritizing the selection of test inputs with high fault-revealing power from large unlabeled datasets. DeepGD not only selects test inputs with high uncertainty scores to trigger as many mispredicted inputs as possible but also maximizes the probability of revealing distinct faults in the DNN model by selecting diverse mispredicted inputs. The experimental results conducted on four widely used datasets and five DNN models show that in terms of fault-revealing ability, (1) white-box, coverage-based approaches fare poorly, (2) DeepGD outperforms existing black-box test selection approaches in terms of fault detection, and (3) DeepGD also leads to better guidance for DNN model retraining when using selected inputs to augment the training set.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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