Papers › Operation is the hardest teacher: estimating DNN accuracy looking for mispredictions
Operation is the hardest teacher: estimating DNN accuracy looking for mispredictions
Antonio Guerriero, Roberto Pietrantuono, Stefano Russo
The archive published only this paper's code-link row. Authors, date and abstract are from arXiv's metadata (CC0), read from the Kaggle arXiv metadata snapshot of 2026-09-12 where its title matched the archive's; the title is the archive's.
Deep Neural Networks (DNN) are typically tested for accuracy relying on a set of unlabelled real world data (operational dataset), from which a subset is selected, manually labelled and used as test suite. This subset is required to be small (due to manual labelling cost) yet to faithfully represent the operational context, with the resulting test suite containing roughly the same proportion of examples causing misprediction (i.e., failing test cases) as the operational dataset. However, while testing to estimate accuracy, it is desirable to also learn as much as possible from the failing tests in the operational dataset, since they inform about possible bugs of the DNN. A smart sampling strategy may allow to intentionally include in the test suite many examples causing misprediction, thus providing this way more valuable inputs for DNN improvement while preserving the ability to get trustworthy unbiased estimates. This paper presents a test selection technique (DeepEST) that actively looks for failing test cases in the operational dataset of a DNN, with the goal of assessing the DNN expected accuracy by a small and ''informative'' test suite (namely with a high number of mispredictions) for subsequent DNN improvement. Experiments with five subjects, combining four DNN models and three datasets, are described. The results show that DeepEST provides DNN accuracy estimates with precision close to (and often better than) those of existing sampling-based DNN testing techniques, while detecting from 5 to 30 times more mispredictions, with the same test suite size.
Code
Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.
Code Syntology ran Syntology
Not run by Syntology. Nothing on this page verifies that the listed code works.
Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28
No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.
Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections