Comparing Offline and Online Testing of Deep Neural Networks: An Autonomous Car Case Study
November 28, 2019 ยท Declared Dead ยท ๐ International Conference on Information Control Systems & Technologies
"No code URL or promise found in abstract"
Evidence collected by the PWNC Scanner
Authors
Fitash Ul Haq, Donghwan Shin, Shiva Nejati, Lionel Briand
arXiv ID
1912.00805
Category
cs.LG: Machine Learning
Cross-listed
cs.SE
Citations
68
Venue
International Conference on Information Control Systems & Technologies
Last Checked
5 months ago
Abstract
There is a growing body of research on developing testing techniques for Deep Neural Networks (DNN). We distinguish two general modes of testing for DNNs: Offline testing where DNNs are tested as individual units based on test datasets obtained independently from the DNNs under test, and online testing where DNNs are embedded into a specific application and tested in a close-loop mode in interaction with the application environment. In addition, we identify two sources for generating test datasets for DNNs: Datasets obtained from real-life and datasets generated by simulators. While offline testing can be used with datasets obtained from either sources, online testing is largely confined to using simulators since online testing within real-life applications can be time-consuming, expensive and dangerous. In this paper, we study the following two important questions aiming to compare test datasets and testing modes for DNNs: First, can we use simulator-generated data as a reliable substitute to real-world data for the purpose of DNN testing? Second, how do online and offline testing results differ and complement each other? Though these questions are generally relevant to all autonomous systems, we study them in the context of automated driving systems where, as study subjects, we use DNNs automating end-to-end control of cars' steering actuators. Our results show that simulator-generated datasets are able to yield DNN prediction errors that are similar to those obtained by testing DNNs with real-life datasets. Further, offline testing is more optimistic than online testing as many safety violations identified by online testing could not be identified by offline testing, while large prediction errors generated by offline testing always led to severe safety violations detectable by online testing.
Community Contributions
Found the code? Know the venue? Think something is wrong? Let us know!
๐ Similar Papers
In the same crypt โ Machine Learning
๐ฎ
๐ฎ
The Ethereal
๐ฎ
๐ฎ
The Ethereal
Continuous control with deep reinforcement learning
๐
๐
Old Age
Model-Agnostic Meta-Learning for Fast Adaptation of Deep Networks
๐
๐
Old Age
Soft Actor-Critic: Off-Policy Maximum Entropy Deep Reinforcement Learning with a Stochastic Actor
๐
๐
Old Age
SGDR: Stochastic Gradient Descent with Warm Restarts
๐ฎ
๐ฎ
The Ethereal
Asynchronous Methods for Deep Reinforcement Learning
Died the same way โ ๐ป Ghosted
R.I.P.
๐ป
Ghosted
Federated Learning: Strategies for Improving Communication Efficiency
R.I.P.
๐ป
Ghosted
In-Datacenter Performance Analysis of a Tensor Processing Unit
R.I.P.
๐ป
Ghosted
Deep Convolutional Neural Networks for Computer-Aided Detection: CNN Architectures, Dataset Characteristics and Transfer Learning
R.I.P.
๐ป
Ghosted