Search arXivSearch

arXiv · 2405.09314

Themis: Automatic and Efficient Deep Learning System Testing with Strong Fault Detection Capability

Abstract

Deep Learning Systems (DLSs) have been widely applied in safety-critical tasks such as autopilot. However, when a perturbed input is fed into a DLS for inference, the DLS often has incorrect outputs (i.e., faults). DLS testing techniques (e.g., DeepXplore) detect such faults by generating perturbed inputs to explore data flows that induce faults. Since a DLS often has infinitely many data flows, existing techniques require developers to manually specify a set of activation values in a DLS's neurons for exploring fault-inducing data flows. Unfortunately, recent studies show that such manual effort is tedious and can detect only a tiny proportion of fault-inducing data flows. In this paper, we present Themis, the first automatic DLS testing system, which attains strong fault detection capability by ensuring a full coverage of fault-inducing data flows at a high probability. Themis carries a new workflow for automatically and systematically revealing data flows whose internal neurons' outputs vary substantially when the inputs are slightly perturbed, as these data flows are likely fault-inducing. We evaluated Themis on ten different DLSs and found that on average the number of faults detected by Themis was 3.78X more than four notable DLS testing techniques. By retraining all evaluated DLSs with the detected faults, Themis also increased (regained) these DLSs' accuracies on average 14.7X higher than all baselines.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Dong Huang, Tsz On Li, Xiaofei Xie, Heming Cui. 2024-08-16. Themis: Automatic and Efficient Deep Learning System Testing with Strong Fault Detection Capability. https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.09314

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Is Vibe Coding Safe? Benchmarking Vulnerability of Agent-Generated Code in Real-World Tasks

Vibe coding is a new software development paradigm in which human engineers prompt a large language model (LLM) agent to complete complex coding tasks with little supervision. Although vibe coding is increasingly adopted, is the generated code really safe to deploy in production? To investigate this question, we propose SUSVIBES, a benchmark consisting of 186 feature-request software engineering tasks from real-world open-source projects, for which, human programmers committed vulnerable implementations. We evaluate 12 widely used coding agentic settings with frontier models on the benchmark. Disturbingly, all agents perform poorly in terms of software security. Although 57% of the solutions from SWE-Agent with Claude 4 Sonnet are functionally correct, only 11.8% are secure. Further experiments demonstrate that preliminary security strategies, such as augmenting the feature request with vulnerability hints, cannot mitigate these security issues. Our findings raise serious concerns about the widespread adoption of vibe coding, particularly in security-sensitive applications. The code and dataset are available at https://github.com/LeiLiLab/susvibes. The leaderboard is at https://leililab.github.io/susvibes-leaderboard.

cs.SE

Why3-py: A Tool for Formal Verification of Hypothesis Testing and Meta-Analysis in Python

The reproducibility crisis in scientific research has received widespread recognition, thereby increasing the importance of meta-analyses that integrate statistical analyses from multiple studies. However, statistical methods often have ambiguous and implicit underlying assumptions, which can lead to their erroneous applications and interpretations. To address this issue, we propose a formal verification framework for statistical Python programs. Specifically, we present Why3-py, a Python front-end for the Why3 verification platform that transforms Python code into verification-oriented WhyML representations, addressing the challenges arising from Python's dynamic typing and runtime polymorphism. Furthermore, we extend the StatWhy tool to support the verification of meta-analysis methods. These tools enable meta-analysts to identify overlooked assumptions and misuse of analyses, and to verify the correct use of hypothesis testing and meta-analysis methods in Python code.

cs.SE

What is the Difference Between Me and You? Benchmarking the Quality Gap Between Human-Written and AI-Generated Code

AI coding assistants are becoming co-authors of production software, yet their evaluation centers on functional correctness, leaving open whether their code differs from human code in the quality dimensions dominating lifecycle cost. We compare human-written and AI-generated code at scale: 787,562 function pairs across Python, Java, and C, each human function mined from open-source repositories paired with implementations generated from its docstring by three AI assistants (OpenAI GPT models, DeepSeek-Coder, Qwen2.5-Coder). We characterize structural complexity and statistical naturalness, and map static-analysis findings onto Orthogonal Defect Classification for defects and the Common Weakness Enumeration for vulnerabilities, making authors and languages directly comparable. AI-generated code is structurally compressed and stylistically templated: roughly half the size and branching of human code, clustering apart at the style level. Defect profiles differ in kind: human code concentrates issues of mature codebases, AI code repetitive boilerplate; security is language-dependent, with LLMs producing more, and more severe, findings in Python and Java but fewer high-severity memory-safety findings than humans in C. Once size is controlled for, complexity metrics carry little signal, while naturalness separates authors. Finally, we release CQBench, a benchmark of 27,346 issue-prone tasks with baselines and an evaluation pipeline for quality assurance and security testing.

cs.SE