探索图神经网络测试选择技术的局限性:实证研究

IF 3.5 2区 计算机科学 Q1 COMPUTER SCIENCE, SOFTWARE ENGINEERING Empirical Software Engineering Pub Date : 2024-07-22 DOI:10.1007/s10664-024-10515-y
Xueqi Dang, Yinghua Li, Wei Ma, Yuejun Guo, Qiang Hu, Mike Papadakis, Maxime Cordy, Yves Le Traon
{"title":"探索图神经网络测试选择技术的局限性:实证研究","authors":"Xueqi Dang, Yinghua Li, Wei Ma, Yuejun Guo, Qiang Hu, Mike Papadakis, Maxime Cordy, Yves Le Traon","doi":"10.1007/s10664-024-10515-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) have gained prominence in various domains, such as social network analysis, recommendation systems, and drug discovery, due to their ability to model complex relationships in graph-structured data. GNNs can exhibit incorrect behavior, resulting in severe consequences. Therefore, testing is necessary and pivotal. However, labeling all test inputs for GNNs can be prohibitively costly and time-consuming, especially when dealing with large and complex graphs. In response to these challenges, test selection has emerged as a strategic approach to alleviate labeling expenses. The objective of test selection is to select a subset of tests from the complete test set. While various test selection techniques have been proposed for traditional deep neural networks (DNNs), their adaptation to GNNs presents unique challenges due to the distinctions between DNN and GNN test data. Specifically, DNN test inputs are independent of each other, whereas GNN test inputs (nodes) exhibit intricate interdependencies. Therefore, it remains unclear whether DNN test selection approaches can perform effectively on GNNs. To fill the gap, we conduct an empirical study that systematically evaluates the effectiveness of various test selection methods in the context of GNNs, focusing on three critical aspects: <b>1) Misclassification detection</b>: selecting test inputs that are more likely to be misclassified; <b>2) Accuracy estimation</b>: selecting a small set of tests to precisely estimate the accuracy of the whole testing set; <b>3) Performance enhancement</b>: selecting retraining inputs to improve the GNN accuracy. Our empirical study encompasses 7 graph datasets and 8 GNN models, evaluating 22 test selection approaches. Our study includes not only node classification datasets but also graph classification datasets. Our findings reveal that: 1) In GNN misclassification detection, confidence-based test selection methods, which perform well in DNNs, do not demonstrate the same level of effectiveness; 2) In terms of GNN accuracy estimation, clustering-based methods, while consistently performing better than random selection, provide only slight improvements; 3) Regarding selecting inputs for GNN performance improvement, test selection methods, such as confidence-based and clustering-based test selection methods, demonstrate only slight effectiveness; 4) Concerning performance enhancement, node importance-based test selection methods are not suitable, and in many cases, they even perform worse than random selection.</p>","PeriodicalId":11525,"journal":{"name":"Empirical Software Engineering","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Towards Exploring the Limitations of Test Selection Techniques on Graph Neural Networks: An Empirical Study\",\"authors\":\"Xueqi Dang, Yinghua Li, Wei Ma, Yuejun Guo, Qiang Hu, Mike Papadakis, Maxime Cordy, Yves Le Traon\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10664-024-10515-y\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) have gained prominence in various domains, such as social network analysis, recommendation systems, and drug discovery, due to their ability to model complex relationships in graph-structured data. GNNs can exhibit incorrect behavior, resulting in severe consequences. Therefore, testing is necessary and pivotal. However, labeling all test inputs for GNNs can be prohibitively costly and time-consuming, especially when dealing with large and complex graphs. In response to these challenges, test selection has emerged as a strategic approach to alleviate labeling expenses. The objective of test selection is to select a subset of tests from the complete test set. While various test selection techniques have been proposed for traditional deep neural networks (DNNs), their adaptation to GNNs presents unique challenges due to the distinctions between DNN and GNN test data. Specifically, DNN test inputs are independent of each other, whereas GNN test inputs (nodes) exhibit intricate interdependencies. Therefore, it remains unclear whether DNN test selection approaches can perform effectively on GNNs. To fill the gap, we conduct an empirical study that systematically evaluates the effectiveness of various test selection methods in the context of GNNs, focusing on three critical aspects: <b>1) Misclassification detection</b>: selecting test inputs that are more likely to be misclassified; <b>2) Accuracy estimation</b>: selecting a small set of tests to precisely estimate the accuracy of the whole testing set; <b>3) Performance enhancement</b>: selecting retraining inputs to improve the GNN accuracy. Our empirical study encompasses 7 graph datasets and 8 GNN models, evaluating 22 test selection approaches. Our study includes not only node classification datasets but also graph classification datasets. Our findings reveal that: 1) In GNN misclassification detection, confidence-based test selection methods, which perform well in DNNs, do not demonstrate the same level of effectiveness; 2) In terms of GNN accuracy estimation, clustering-based methods, while consistently performing better than random selection, provide only slight improvements; 3) Regarding selecting inputs for GNN performance improvement, test selection methods, such as confidence-based and clustering-based test selection methods, demonstrate only slight effectiveness; 4) Concerning performance enhancement, node importance-based test selection methods are not suitable, and in many cases, they even perform worse than random selection.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11525,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Empirical Software Engineering\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Empirical Software Engineering\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"94\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-024-10515-y\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"计算机科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"COMPUTER SCIENCE, SOFTWARE ENGINEERING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Empirical Software Engineering","FirstCategoryId":"94","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-024-10515-y","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"计算机科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"COMPUTER SCIENCE, SOFTWARE ENGINEERING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

图神经网络(GNN)能够为图结构数据中的复杂关系建模,因此在社交网络分析、推荐系统和药物发现等多个领域大放异彩。GNN 可能会表现出不正确的行为,从而导致严重后果。因此,测试是必要和关键的。然而,为 GNN 标注所有测试输入可能会耗费大量成本和时间,尤其是在处理大型复杂图形时。为了应对这些挑战,测试选择作为一种战略方法应运而生,以减轻标注费用。测试选择的目的是从完整的测试集中选择一个测试子集。虽然针对传统深度神经网络(DNN)提出了各种测试选择技术,但由于 DNN 和 GNN 测试数据之间的区别,这些技术对 GNN 的适应性提出了独特的挑战。具体来说,DNN 的测试输入是相互独立的,而 GNN 的测试输入(节点)则表现出错综复杂的相互依赖性。因此,目前还不清楚 DNN 测试选择方法能否在 GNN 上有效执行。为了填补这一空白,我们开展了一项实证研究,系统地评估了各种测试选择方法在 GNN 中的有效性,重点关注三个关键方面:1) 误分类检测:选择更有可能被误分类的测试输入;2) 精度估计:选择一小部分测试集来精确估计整个测试集的精度;3) 性能提升:选择再训练输入来提高 GNN 的精度。我们的实证研究包括 7 个图数据集和 8 个 GNN 模型,评估了 22 种测试选择方法。我们的研究不仅包括节点分类数据集,还包括图分类数据集。我们的研究结果表明1)在 GNN 误分类检测方面,在 DNN 中表现良好的基于置信度的测试选择方法并没有表现出同样的效果;2)在 GNN 精度估计方面,基于聚类的方法虽然一直比随机选择方法表现更好,但也只是略有改善;3)在选择输入以提高 GNN 性能方面,基于置信度和聚类的测试选择方法等测试选择方法只是略有成效;4)在性能提升方面,基于节点重要性的测试选择方法并不合适,在很多情况下,它们的表现甚至比随机选择方法更差。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Towards Exploring the Limitations of Test Selection Techniques on Graph Neural Networks: An Empirical Study

Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) have gained prominence in various domains, such as social network analysis, recommendation systems, and drug discovery, due to their ability to model complex relationships in graph-structured data. GNNs can exhibit incorrect behavior, resulting in severe consequences. Therefore, testing is necessary and pivotal. However, labeling all test inputs for GNNs can be prohibitively costly and time-consuming, especially when dealing with large and complex graphs. In response to these challenges, test selection has emerged as a strategic approach to alleviate labeling expenses. The objective of test selection is to select a subset of tests from the complete test set. While various test selection techniques have been proposed for traditional deep neural networks (DNNs), their adaptation to GNNs presents unique challenges due to the distinctions between DNN and GNN test data. Specifically, DNN test inputs are independent of each other, whereas GNN test inputs (nodes) exhibit intricate interdependencies. Therefore, it remains unclear whether DNN test selection approaches can perform effectively on GNNs. To fill the gap, we conduct an empirical study that systematically evaluates the effectiveness of various test selection methods in the context of GNNs, focusing on three critical aspects: 1) Misclassification detection: selecting test inputs that are more likely to be misclassified; 2) Accuracy estimation: selecting a small set of tests to precisely estimate the accuracy of the whole testing set; 3) Performance enhancement: selecting retraining inputs to improve the GNN accuracy. Our empirical study encompasses 7 graph datasets and 8 GNN models, evaluating 22 test selection approaches. Our study includes not only node classification datasets but also graph classification datasets. Our findings reveal that: 1) In GNN misclassification detection, confidence-based test selection methods, which perform well in DNNs, do not demonstrate the same level of effectiveness; 2) In terms of GNN accuracy estimation, clustering-based methods, while consistently performing better than random selection, provide only slight improvements; 3) Regarding selecting inputs for GNN performance improvement, test selection methods, such as confidence-based and clustering-based test selection methods, demonstrate only slight effectiveness; 4) Concerning performance enhancement, node importance-based test selection methods are not suitable, and in many cases, they even perform worse than random selection.

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
Empirical Software Engineering
Empirical Software Engineering 工程技术-计算机:软件工程
CiteScore
8.50
自引率
12.20%
发文量
169
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Empirical Software Engineering provides a forum for applied software engineering research with a strong empirical component, and a venue for publishing empirical results relevant to both researchers and practitioners. Empirical studies presented here usually involve the collection and analysis of data and experience that can be used to characterize, evaluate and reveal relationships between software development deliverables, practices, and technologies. Over time, it is expected that such empirical results will form a body of knowledge leading to widely accepted and well-formed theories. The journal also offers industrial experience reports detailing the application of software technologies - processes, methods, or tools - and their effectiveness in industrial settings. Empirical Software Engineering promotes the publication of industry-relevant research, to address the significant gap between research and practice.
期刊最新文献
An empirical study on developers’ shared conversations with ChatGPT in GitHub pull requests and issues Quality issues in machine learning software systems An empirical study of token-based micro commits Software product line testing: a systematic literature review Consensus task interaction trace recommender to guide developers’ software navigation
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1