Improving Deep Learning Framework Testing with Model-Level Metamorphic Testing
July 06, 2025 Β· Declared Dead Β· π Proc. ACM Softw. Eng.
"No code URL or promise found in abstract"
Evidence collected by the PWNC Scanner
Authors
Yanzhou Mu, Juan Zhai, Chunrong Fang, Xiang Chen, Zhixiang Cao, Peiran Yang, Kexin Zhao, An Guo, Zhenyu Chen
arXiv ID
2507.04354
Category
cs.SE: Software Engineering
Citations
4
Venue
Proc. ACM Softw. Eng.
Last Checked
4 months ago
Abstract
Deep learning (DL) frameworks are essential to DL-based software systems, and framework bugs may lead to substantial disasters, thus requiring effective testing. Researchers adopt DL models or single interfaces as test inputs and analyze their execution results to detect bugs. However, floating-point errors, inherent randomness, and the complexity of test inputs make it challenging to analyze execution results effectively, leading to existing methods suffering from a lack of suitable test oracles. Some researchers utilize metamorphic testing to tackle this challenge. They design Metamorphic Relations (MRs) based on input data and parameter settings of a single framework interface to generate equivalent test inputs, ensuring consistent execution results between original and generated test inputs. Despite their promising effectiveness, they still face certain limitations. (1) Existing MRs overlook structural complexity, limiting test input diversity. (2) Existing MRs focus on limited interfaces, which limits generalization and necessitates additional adaptations. (3) Their detected bugs are related to the result consistency of single interfaces and far from those exposed in multi-interface combinations and runtime metrics (e.g., resource usage). To address these limitations, we propose ModelMeta, a model-level metamorphic testing method for DL frameworks with four MRs focused on the structure characteristics of DL models. ModelMeta augments seed models with diverse interface combinations to generate test inputs with consistent outputs, guided by the QR-DQN strategy. It then detects bugs through fine-grained analysis of training loss/gradients, memory/GPU usage, and execution time.
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