Search-Based DNN Testing and Retraining With GAN-Enhanced Simulations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In safety-critical systems (e.g., autonomous vehicles and robots), Deep Neural Networks (DNNs) are becoming a key component for computer vision tasks, particularly semantic segmentation. Further, since DNN behavior cannot be assessed through code inspection and analysis, test automation has become an essential activity to gain confidence in the reliability of DNNs. Unfortunately, state-of-the-art automated testing solutions largely rely on simulators, whose fidelity is always imperfect, thus affecting the validity of test results. To address such limitations, we propose to combine meta-heuristic search, used to explore the input space using simulators, with Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs), to transform the data generated by simulators into realistic input images. Such images can be used both to assess the DNN accuracy and to retrain the DNN more effectively. We applied our approach to a state-of-the-art DNN performing semantic segmentation, in two different case studies, and demonstrated that it outperforms a state-of-the-art GAN-based testing solution and several other baselines. Specifically, it leads to the largest number of diverse images leading to the worst DNN accuracy. Further, the images generated with our approach, lead to the highest improvement in DNN accuracy when used for retraining. In conclusion, we suggest to always integrate a trained GAN to transform test inputs when performing search-driven, simulator-based testing.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".