Deep Learning Framework Testing via Model Mutation: How Far Are We?
June 21, 2025 Β· Declared Dead Β· π arXiv.org
"No code URL or promise found in abstract"
Evidence collected by the PWNC Scanner
Authors
Yanzhou Mu, Rong Wang, Juan Zhai, Chunrong Fang, Xiang Chen, Zhiyuan Peng, Peiran Yang, Ruixiang Qian, Shaoyu Yang, Zhenyu Chen
arXiv ID
2506.17638
Category
cs.SE: Software Engineering
Citations
0
Venue
arXiv.org
Last Checked
5 months ago
Abstract
Deep Learning (DL) frameworks are a fundamental component of DL development. Therefore, the detection of DL framework defects is important and challenging. As one of the most widely adopted DL testing techniques, model mutation has recently gained significant attention. In this study, we revisit the defect detection ability of existing mutation-based testing methods and investigate the factors that influence their effectiveness. To begin with, we reviewed existing methods and observed that many of them mutate DL models (e.g., changing their parameters) without any customization, ignoring the unique challenges in framework testing. Another issue with these methods is their limited effectiveness, characterized by a high rate of false positives caused by illegal mutations arising from the use of generic, non-customized mutation operators. Moreover, we tracked the defects identified by these methods and discovered that most of them were ignored by developers. Motivated by these observations, we investigate the effectiveness of existing mutation-based testing methods in detecting important defects that have been authenticated by framework developers. We begin by collecting defect reports from three popular frameworks and classifying them based on framework developers' ratings to build a comprehensive dataset. We then perform an in-depth analysis to uncover valuable insights. Based on our findings, we propose optimization strategies to address the shortcomings of existing approaches. Following these optimizations, we identified seven new defects, four of which were confirmed by developers as high-priority issues, with three resolved. In summary, we identified 39 unique defects across just 23 models, of which 31 were confirmed by developers, and eight have been fixed.
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