ﻻ يوجد ملخص باللغة العربية
Recently, there has been a significant growth of interest in applying software engineering techniques for the quality assurance of deep learning (DL) systems. One popular direction is deep learning testing, where adversarial examples (a.k.a.~bugs) of DL systems are found either by fuzzing or guided search with the help of certain testing metrics. However, recent studies have revealed that the commonly used neuron coverage metrics by existing DL testing approaches are not correlated to model robustness. It is also not an effective measurement on the confidence of the model robustness after testing. In this work, we address this gap by proposing a novel testing framework called Robustness-Oriented Testing (RobOT). A key part of RobOT is a quantitative measurement on 1) the value of each test case in improving model robustness (often via retraining), and 2) the convergence quality of the model robustness improvement. RobOT utilizes the proposed metric to automatically generate test cases valuable for improving model robustness. The proposed metric is also a strong indicator on how well robustness improvement has converged through testing. Experiments on multiple benchmark datasets confirm the effectiveness and efficiency of RobOT in improving DL model robustness, with 67.02% increase on the adversarial robustness that is 50.65% higher than the state-of-the-art work DeepGini.
Deep learning (DL) has achieved remarkable progress over the past decade and been widely applied to many safety-critical applications. However, the robustness of DL systems recently receives great concerns, such as adversarial examples against comput
Deep learning (DL) defines a new data-driven programming paradigm that constructs the internal system logic of a crafted neuron network through a set of training data. We have seen wide adoption of DL in many safety-critical scenarios. However, a ple
Deep learning (DL) defines a new data-driven programming paradigm where the internal system logic is largely shaped by the training data. The standard way of evaluating DL models is to examine their performance on a test dataset. The quality of the t
Program verifiers are not exempt from the bugs that affect nearly every piece of software. In addition, they often exhibit brittle behavior: their performance changes considerably with details of how the input program is expressed-details that should
The boom of DL technology leads to massive DL models built and shared, which facilitates the acquisition and reuse of DL models. For a given task, we encounter multiple DL models available with the same functionality, which are considered as candidat