Test Selection for Deep Learning Systems

April 30, 2019 ยท Declared Dead ยท ๐Ÿ› ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology

๐Ÿ‘ป CAUSE OF DEATH: Ghosted
No code link whatsoever

"No code URL or promise found in abstract"

Evidence collected by the PWNC Scanner

Authors Wei Ma, Mike Papadakis, Anestis Tsakmalis, Maxime Cordy, Yves Le Traon arXiv ID 1904.13195 Category cs.LG: Machine Learning Cross-listed cs.SE, stat.ML Citations 106 Venue ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology Last Checked 4 months ago
Abstract
Testing of deep learning models is challenging due to the excessive number and complexity of computations involved. As a result, test data selection is performed manually and in an ad hoc way. This raises the question of how we can automatically select candidate test data to test deep learning models. Recent research has focused on adapting test selection metrics from code-based software testing (such as coverage) to deep learning. However, deep learning models have different attributes from code such as spread of computations across the entire network reflecting training data properties, balance of neuron weights and redundancy (use of many more neurons than needed). Such differences make code-based metrics inappropriate to select data that can challenge the models (can trigger misclassification). We thus propose a set of test selection metrics based on the notion of model uncertainty (model confidence on specific inputs). Intuitively, the more uncertain we are about a candidate sample, the more likely it is that this sample triggers a misclassification. Similarly, the samples for which we are the most uncertain, are the most informative and should be used to improve the model by retraining. We evaluate these metrics on two widely-used image classification problems involving real and artificial (adversarial) data. We show that uncertainty-based metrics have a strong ability to select data that are misclassified and lead to major improvement in classification accuracy during retraining: up to 80% more gain than random selection and other state-of-the-art metrics on one dataset and up to 29% on the other.
Community shame:
Not yet rated
Community Contributions

Found the code? Know the venue? Think something is wrong? Let us know!

๐Ÿ“œ Similar Papers

In the same crypt โ€” Machine Learning

Died the same way โ€” ๐Ÿ‘ป Ghosted