AutoTestForge: A Multidimensional Automated Testing Framework for Natural Language Processing Models
March 07, 2025 Β· Declared Dead Β· π ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology
"No code URL or promise found in abstract"
Evidence collected by the PWNC Scanner
Authors
Hengrui Xing, Cong Tian, Liang Zhao, Zhi Ma, WenSheng Wang, Nan Zhang, Chao Huang, Zhenhua Duan
arXiv ID
2503.05102
Category
cs.SE: Software Engineering
Cross-listed
cs.CL,
cs.CR
Citations
0
Venue
ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology
Last Checked
5 months ago
Abstract
In recent years, the application of behavioral testing in Natural Language Processing (NLP) model evaluation has experienced a remarkable and substantial growth. However, the existing methods continue to be restricted by the requirements for manual labor and the limited scope of capability assessment. To address these limitations, we introduce AutoTestForge, an automated and multidimensional testing framework for NLP models in this paper. Within AutoTestForge, through the utilization of Large Language Models (LLMs) to automatically generate test templates and instantiate them, manual involvement is significantly reduced. Additionally, a mechanism for the validation of test case labels based on differential testing is implemented which makes use of a multi-model voting system to guarantee the quality of test cases. The framework also extends the test suite across three dimensions, taxonomy, fairness, and robustness, offering a comprehensive evaluation of the capabilities of NLP models. This expansion enables a more in-depth and thorough assessment of the models, providing valuable insights into their strengths and weaknesses. A comprehensive evaluation across sentiment analysis (SA) and semantic textual similarity (STS) tasks demonstrates that AutoTestForge consistently outperforms existing datasets and testing tools, achieving higher error detection rates (an average of $30.89\%$ for SA and $34.58\%$ for STS). Moreover, different generation strategies exhibit stable effectiveness, with error detection rates ranging from $29.03\% - 36.82\%$.
Community Contributions
Found the code? Know the venue? Think something is wrong? Let us know!
π Similar Papers
In the same crypt β Software Engineering
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Microservices: yesterday, today, and tomorrow
π
π
The Cartographer
A Survey of Machine Learning for Big Code and Naturalness
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
An Overview on Smart Contracts: Challenges, Advances and Platforms
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Slither: A Static Analysis Framework For Smart Contracts
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
ContractFuzzer: Fuzzing Smart Contracts for Vulnerability Detection
Died the same way β π» Ghosted
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Federated Learning: Strategies for Improving Communication Efficiency
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
In-Datacenter Performance Analysis of a Tensor Processing Unit
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Deep Convolutional Neural Networks for Computer-Aided Detection: CNN Architectures, Dataset Characteristics and Transfer Learning
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted