Thinking Beyond Distributions in Testing Machine Learned Models
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Testing practices within the machine learning (ML) community have centered around assessing a learned model's predictive performance measured against a test dataset, often drawn from the same distribution as the training dataset. While recent work on robustness and fairness testing within the ML community has pointed to the importance of testing against distributional shifts, these efforts also focus on estimating the likelihood of the model making an error against a reference dataset/distribution. We argue that this view of testing actively discourages researchers and developers from looking into other sources of robustness failures, for instance corner cases which may have severe undesirable impacts. We draw parallels with decades of work within software engineering testing focused on assessing a software system against various stress conditions, including corner cases, as opposed to solely focusing on average-case behaviour. Finally, we put forth a set of recommendations to broaden the view of machine learning testing to a rigorous practice.
Key facts. Cited by 5 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 20 of its 33 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 6 Dec 2021.
Builds on
20 of 33 references.
References · 20
- 2019Benchmarking Neural Network Robustness to Common Corruptions and Perturbationscited by 2,857
- 2014Unsupervised Domain Adaptation by Backpropagationcited by 1,906
- 2019Natural Adversarial Examplescited by 1,401
- 2018Datasheets for Datasetscited by 1,371
- 2017CyCADA: Cycle-Consistent Adversarial Domain Adaptationcited by 1,079
- 2018Model Cards for Model Reportingcited by 1,068
- 2020Beyond Accuracy: Behavioral Testing of NLP models with CheckListcited by 979
- 2017Counterfactual Fairnesscited by 802
- 2019Adversarial NLI: A New Benchmark for Natural Language Understandingcited by 798
- 2020Underspecification Presents Challenges for Credibility in Modern Machine Learningcited by 488
- 2020Closing the AI Accountability Gap: Defining an End-to-End Framework for Internal Algorithmic Auditingcited by 380
- 2018Failing Loudly: An Empirical Study of Methods for Detecting Dataset Shiftcited by 240
8 more
- 2021Robustness Gym: Unifying the NLP Evaluation Landscapecited by 107
- 2021Re-imagining Algorithmic Fairness in India and Beyondcited by 102
- 2019Perturbation Sensitivity Analysis to Detect Unintended Model Biasescited by 74
- 2020Understanding Failures of Deep Networks via Robust Feature Extractioncited by 56
- 2020Extending the Machine Learning Abstraction Boundary: A Complex Systems Approach to Incorporate Societal Contextcited by 18
- 2021Representativeness in Statistics, Politics, and Machine Learningcited by 17
- 2018Adversarial Framing for Image and Video Classificationcited by 15
- 2018Meltdowncited by 3
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2022: 3; 2023: 1; 2024: 1.
5 papers.
- 2022Evaluation Gaps in Machine Learning Practicecited by 48
- 2022From plane crashes to algorithmic harm: applicability of safety engineering frameworks for responsible MLcited by 26
- 2023Deep Learning Safety Concerns in Automated Driving Perceptioncited by 10
- 2024Context-Aware Testing: A New Paradigm for Model Testing with Large Language Modelscited by 8
- 2022Measuring and signing fairness as performance under multiple stakeholder distributionscited by 6
- 2024Context-Aware Testing: A New Paradigm for Model Testing with Large Language Models31 Oct 2024
- 2023Deep Learning Safety Concerns in Automated Driving Perception7 Sep 2023
- 2022From plane crashes to algorithmic harm: applicability of safety engineering frameworks for responsible ML6 Oct 2022
- 2022Measuring and signing fairness as performance under multiple stakeholder distributions20 Jul 2022
- 2022Evaluation Gaps in Machine Learning Practice11 May 2022