AEON:自动评估NLP测试用例的方法

Jen-tse Huang, Jianping Zhang, Wenxuan Wang, Pinjia He, Yuxin Su, Michael R. Lyu
{"title":"AEON:自动评估NLP测试用例的方法","authors":"Jen-tse Huang, Jianping Zhang, Wenxuan Wang, Pinjia He, Yuxin Su, Michael R. Lyu","doi":"10.1145/3533767.3534394","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Due to the labor-intensive nature of manual test oracle construction, various automated testing techniques have been proposed to enhance the reliability of Natural Language Processing (NLP) software. In theory, these techniques mutate an existing test case (e.g., a sentence with its label) and assume the generated one preserves an equivalent or similar semantic meaning and thus, the same label. However, in practice, many of the generated test cases fail to preserve similar semantic meaning and are unnatural (e.g., grammar errors), which leads to a high false alarm rate and unnatural test cases. Our evaluation study finds that 44% of the test cases generated by the state-of-the-art (SOTA) approaches are false alarms. These test cases require extensive manual checking effort, and instead of improving NLP software, they can even degrade NLP software when utilized in model training. To address this problem, we propose AEON for Automatic Evaluation Of NLP test cases. For each generated test case, it outputs scores based on semantic similarity and language naturalness. We employ AEON to evaluate test cases generated by four popular testing techniques on five datasets across three typical NLP tasks. The results show that AEON aligns the best with human judgment. In particular, AEON achieves the best average precision in detecting semantic inconsistent test cases, outperforming the best baseline metric by 10%. In addition, AEON also has the highest average precision of finding unnatural test cases, surpassing the baselines by more than 15%. Moreover, model training with test cases prioritized by AEON leads to models that are more accurate and robust, demonstrating AEON’s potential in improving NLP software.","PeriodicalId":412271,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the 31st ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis","volume":"5 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-05-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"14","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"AEON: a method for automatic evaluation of NLP test cases\",\"authors\":\"Jen-tse Huang, Jianping Zhang, Wenxuan Wang, Pinjia He, Yuxin Su, Michael R. Lyu\",\"doi\":\"10.1145/3533767.3534394\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Due to the labor-intensive nature of manual test oracle construction, various automated testing techniques have been proposed to enhance the reliability of Natural Language Processing (NLP) software. In theory, these techniques mutate an existing test case (e.g., a sentence with its label) and assume the generated one preserves an equivalent or similar semantic meaning and thus, the same label. However, in practice, many of the generated test cases fail to preserve similar semantic meaning and are unnatural (e.g., grammar errors), which leads to a high false alarm rate and unnatural test cases. Our evaluation study finds that 44% of the test cases generated by the state-of-the-art (SOTA) approaches are false alarms. These test cases require extensive manual checking effort, and instead of improving NLP software, they can even degrade NLP software when utilized in model training. To address this problem, we propose AEON for Automatic Evaluation Of NLP test cases. For each generated test case, it outputs scores based on semantic similarity and language naturalness. We employ AEON to evaluate test cases generated by four popular testing techniques on five datasets across three typical NLP tasks. The results show that AEON aligns the best with human judgment. In particular, AEON achieves the best average precision in detecting semantic inconsistent test cases, outperforming the best baseline metric by 10%. In addition, AEON also has the highest average precision of finding unnatural test cases, surpassing the baselines by more than 15%. Moreover, model training with test cases prioritized by AEON leads to models that are more accurate and robust, demonstrating AEON’s potential in improving NLP software.\",\"PeriodicalId\":412271,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Proceedings of the 31st ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis\",\"volume\":\"5 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-05-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"14\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Proceedings of the 31st ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1145/3533767.3534394\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the 31st ACM SIGSOFT International Symposium on Software Testing and Analysis","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/3533767.3534394","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 14

摘要

由于手工测试oracle构建的劳动密集型性质,人们提出了各种自动化测试技术来提高自然语言处理(NLP)软件的可靠性。从理论上讲,这些技术会改变现有的测试用例(例如,一个带有标签的句子),并假设生成的用例保留了相同或相似的语义含义,从而保留了相同的标签。然而,在实践中,许多生成的测试用例不能保持相似的语义意义,并且是不自然的(例如,语法错误),这导致了很高的假警报率和不自然的测试用例。我们的评估研究发现,由最先进的(SOTA)方法生成的测试用例中有44%是假警报。这些测试用例需要大量的手工检查工作,而不是改进NLP软件,当在模型训练中使用时,它们甚至会降低NLP软件的质量。为了解决这个问题,我们提出了自动评估NLP测试用例的AEON。对于每个生成的测试用例,它基于语义相似度和语言自然度输出分数。我们使用AEON来评估由四种流行的测试技术在三个典型NLP任务的五个数据集上生成的测试用例。结果表明,AEON最符合人类的判断。特别是,AEON在检测语义不一致的测试用例方面达到了最好的平均精度,比最好的基线度量高出10%。此外,AEON在发现非自然测试用例方面也具有最高的平均精度,超过基线15%以上。此外,用AEON优先考虑的测试用例进行的模型训练导致模型更加准确和健壮,证明了AEON在改进NLP软件方面的潜力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
AEON: a method for automatic evaluation of NLP test cases
Due to the labor-intensive nature of manual test oracle construction, various automated testing techniques have been proposed to enhance the reliability of Natural Language Processing (NLP) software. In theory, these techniques mutate an existing test case (e.g., a sentence with its label) and assume the generated one preserves an equivalent or similar semantic meaning and thus, the same label. However, in practice, many of the generated test cases fail to preserve similar semantic meaning and are unnatural (e.g., grammar errors), which leads to a high false alarm rate and unnatural test cases. Our evaluation study finds that 44% of the test cases generated by the state-of-the-art (SOTA) approaches are false alarms. These test cases require extensive manual checking effort, and instead of improving NLP software, they can even degrade NLP software when utilized in model training. To address this problem, we propose AEON for Automatic Evaluation Of NLP test cases. For each generated test case, it outputs scores based on semantic similarity and language naturalness. We employ AEON to evaluate test cases generated by four popular testing techniques on five datasets across three typical NLP tasks. The results show that AEON aligns the best with human judgment. In particular, AEON achieves the best average precision in detecting semantic inconsistent test cases, outperforming the best baseline metric by 10%. In addition, AEON also has the highest average precision of finding unnatural test cases, surpassing the baselines by more than 15%. Moreover, model training with test cases prioritized by AEON leads to models that are more accurate and robust, demonstrating AEON’s potential in improving NLP software.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信