Assessing the Robustness of Test Selection Methods 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
Regularly testing deep learning-powered systems on newly collected data is critical to ensure their reliability, robustness, and efficacy in real-world applications. This process is demanding due to the significant time and human effort required for labeling new data. While test selection methods alleviate manual labor by labeling and evaluating only a subset of data while meeting testing criteria, we observe that such methods with reported promising results are simply evaluated, e.g., testing on original test data. The question arises: are they always reliable? In this paper, we explore when and to what extent test selection methods fail. First, we identify potential pitfalls of 11 selection methods based on their construction. Second, we conduct a study to empirically confirm the existence of these pitfalls. Furthermore, we demonstrate how pitfalls can break the reliability of these methods. Concretely, methods for fault detection suffer from data that are: 1) correctly classified but uncertain, or 2) misclassified but confident. Remarkably, the test relative coverage achieved by such methods drops by up to 86.85%. Besides, methods for performance estimation are sensitive to the choice of intermediate-layer output. The effectiveness of such methods can be even worse than random selection when using an inappropriate layer.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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