Papers › Smoke Testing for Machine Learning: Simple Tests to Discover Severe Defects

Smoke Testing for Machine Learning: Simple Tests to Discover Severe Defects

3 Sep 2020arXiv:2009.01521archive 2025-07-28

Steffen Herbold, Tobias Haar

Machine learning is nowadays a standard technique for data analysis within software applications. Software engineers need quality assurance techniques that are suitable for these new kinds of systems. Within this article, we discuss the question whether standard software testing techniques that have been part of textbooks since decades are also useful for the testing of machine learning software. Concretely, we try to determine generic and simple smoke tests that can be used to assert that basic functions can be executed without crashing. We found that we can derive such tests using techniques similar to equivalence classes and boundary value analysis. Moreover, we found that these concepts can also be applied to hyperparameters, to further improve the quality of the smoke tests. Even though our approach is almost trivial, we were able to find bugs in all three machine learning libraries that we tested and severe bugs in two of the three libraries. This demonstrates that common software testing techniques are still valid in the age of machine learning and that considerations how they can be adapted to this new context can help to find and prevent severe bugs, even in mature machine learning libraries.

PaperPDFCode

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.

Tasks

BIG-bench Machine Learningsoftware testing

1 archive task tag without a task page not shown.

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