mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Bugs in Machine Learning-based Systems: A Faultload Benchmark

arXiv 2206.12311 ↗First posted 24 Jun 2022cs.SE cs.LGcited by 15

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

The rapid escalation of applying Machine Learning (ML) in various domains has led to paying more attention to the quality of ML components. There is then a growth of techniques and tools aiming at improving the quality of ML components and integrating them into the ML-based system safely. Although most of these tools use bugs' lifecycle, there is no standard benchmark of bugs to assess their performance, compare them and discuss their advantages and weaknesses. In this study, we firstly investigate the reproducibility and verifiability of the bugs in ML-based systems and show the most important factors in each one. Then, we explore the challenges of generating a benchmark of bugs in ML-based software systems and provide a bug benchmark namely defect4ML that satisfies all criteria of standard benchmark, i.e. relevance, reproducibility, fairness, verifiability, and usability. This faultload benchmark contains 100 bugs reported by ML developers in GitHub and Stack Overflow, using two of the most popular ML frameworks: TensorFlow and Keras. defect4ML also addresses important challenges in Software Reliability Engineering of ML-based software systems, like: 1) fast changes in frameworks, by providing various bugs for different versions of frameworks, 2) code portability, by delivering similar bugs in different ML frameworks, 3) bug reproducibility, by providing fully reproducible bugs with complete information about required dependencies and data, and 4) lack of detailed information on bugs, by presenting links to the bugs' origins. defect4ML can be of interest to ML-based systems practitioners and researchers to assess their testing tools and techniques.

Key facts. Cited by 15 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 27 of its 92 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 24 Jun 2022.

Builds on

27 of 92 references.

References · 27

  1. 2019PyTorch: An Imperative Style, High-Performance Deep Learning Librarycited by 20,305
  2. 2016The Mythos of Model Interpretabilitycited by 721
  3. 2020Overfitting in adversarially robust deep learningcited by 506
  4. 2017DeepXplore: Automated Whitebox Testing of Deep Learning Systemscited by 311
  5. 2017DeepTest: Automated Testing of Deep-Neural-Network-driven Autonomous Carscited by 251
  6. 2019Machine Learning Testing: Survey, Landscapes and Horizonscited by 218
  7. 2018DeepGauge: Multi-Granularity Testing Criteria for Deep Learning Systemscited by 147
  8. 2018The Frontiers of Fairness in Machine Learningcited by 141
  9. 2019Transferable Clean-Label Poisoning Attacks on Deep Neural Netscited by 131
  10. 2019Taxonomy of Real Faults in Deep Learning Systemscited by 90
  11. 2021Software Engineering for AI-Based Systems: A Surveycited by 69
  12. 2019A Comprehensive Study on Deep Learning Bug Characteristicscited by 65
15 more
  1. 2016Theano: A Python framework for fast computation of mathematical expressionscited by 64
  2. 2021DeepLocalize: Fault Localization for Deep Neural Networkscited by 38
  3. 2020Repairing Deep Neural Networks: Fix Patterns and Challengescited by 33
  4. 2021Silent Bugs in Deep Learning Frameworks: An Empirical Study of Keras and TensorFlowcited by 25
  5. 2021Quality Assurance for AI-based Systems: Overview and Challengescited by 19
  6. 2021DeepDiagnosis: Automatically Diagnosing Faults and Recommending Actionable Fixes in Deep Learning Programscited by 19
  7. 2021Faults in Deep Reinforcement Learning Programs: A Taxonomy and A Detection Approachcited by 18
  8. 2019Bears: An Extensible Java Bug Benchmark for Automatic Program Repair Studiescited by 13
  9. 2021Design Smells in Deep Learning Programs: An Empirical Studycited by 10
  10. 2021Extracting Concise Bug-Fixing Patches from Human-Written Patches in Version Control Systemscited by 9
  11. 2021Automatic Fault Detection for Deep Learning Programs Using Graph Transformationscited by 9
  12. 2020The AIQ Meta-Testbed: Pragmatically Bridging Academic AI Testing and Industrial Q Needscited by 5
  13. 2020Are Multi-language Design Smells Fault-prone? An Empirical Studycited by 5
  14. 2019On the Diversity of Software Package Popularity Metrics: An Empirical Study of npmcited by 4
  15. 2021The challenge of reproducible ML: an empirical study on the impact of bugscited by 3

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2023: 3; 2024: 4; 2025: 3; 2026: 5.

15 papers.

Sort:

By area: