mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Reducing DNN Labelling Cost using Surprise Adequacy: An Industrial Case Study for Autonomous Driving

arXiv 2006.00894 ↗First posted 29 May 2020cs.LG cs.SEcited by 21

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Deep Neural Networks (DNNs) are rapidly being adopted by the automotive industry, due to their impressive performance in tasks that are essential for autonomous driving. Object segmentation is one such task: its aim is to precisely locate boundaries of objects and classify the identified objects, helping autonomous cars to recognise the road environment and the traffic situation. Not only is this task safety critical, but developing a DNN based object segmentation module presents a set of challenges that are significantly different from traditional development of safety critical software. The development process in use consists of multiple iterations of data collection, labelling, training, and evaluation. Among these stages, training and evaluation are computation intensive while data collection and labelling are manual labour intensive. This paper shows how development of DNN based object segmentation can be improved by exploiting the correlation between Surprise Adequacy (SA) and model performance. The correlation allows us to predict model performance for inputs without manually labelling them. This, in turn, enables understanding of model performance, more guided data collection, and informed decisions about further training. In our industrial case study the technique allows cost savings of up to 50% with negligible evaluation inaccuracy. Furthermore, engineers can trade off cost savings versus the tolerable level of inaccuracy depending on different development phases and scenarios.

Key facts. Cited by 21 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 29 May 2020.

Builds on

No reference list yet.

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2021: 4; 2022: 8; 2023: 2; 2024: 1; 2025: 4; 2026: 2.

21 papers.

Sort:

By area:

  1. 2023Synthetic Datasets for Autonomous Driving: A Surveycited by 48
  2. 2022Simple Techniques Work Surprisingly Well for Neural Network Test Prioritization and Active Learning (Replicability Study)cited by 27
  3. 2022When and Why Test Generators for Deep Learning Produce Invalid Inputs: an Empirical Studycited by 18
  4. 2021MDPFuzz: Testing Models Solving Markov Decision Processescited by 11
  5. 2021A Review and Refinement of Surprise Adequacycited by 9
  6. 2021Revisiting Neuron Coverage for DNN Testing: A Layer-Wise and Distribution-Aware Criterioncited by 9
  7. 2022Black-box Safety Analysis and Retraining of DNNs based on Feature Extraction and Clusteringcited by 8
  8. 2022Generating and Detecting True Ambiguity: A Forgotten Danger in DNN Supervision Testingcited by 8
  9. 2024A Unified Approach Towards Active Learning and Out-of-Distribution Detectioncited by 7
  10. 2021Corner case data description and detectioncited by 4
  11. 2022Exploring ML testing in practice -- Lessons learned from an interactive rapid review with Axis Communicationscited by 3
  12. 2022Uncertainty Quantification for Deep Neural Networks: An Empirical Comparison and Usage Guidelinescited by 3
9 more
  1. 2022Guiding the retraining of convolutional neural networks against adversarial inputscited by 1
  2. 2025DANDI: Diffusion as Normative Distribution for Deep Neural Network Inputcited by 1
  3. 2025Clotho: Measuring Task-Specific Pre-Generation Test Adequacy for LLM Inputscited by 1
  4. 2022Anomaly Detection in Driving by Cluster Analysis Twicecited by 0
  5. 2023Adopting Two Supervisors for Efficient Use of Large-Scale Remote Deep Neural Networkscited by 0
  6. 2025GAN-enhanced Simulation-driven DNN Testing in Absence of Ground Truthcited by 0
  7. 2025TopoMap: A Feature-based Semantic Discriminator of the Topographical Regions in the Test Input Spacecited by 0
  8. 2026RACC: Representation-Aware Coverage Criteria for LLM Safety Testingcited by 0
  9. 2026Test Case Prioritization for DNNs via Neural Collapse Instabilitycited by 0