Search for: All records

Recent effort to test deep learning systems has produced an intuitive and compelling test criterion called neuron coverage (NC), which resembles the notion of traditional code coverage. NC measures the proportion of neurons activated in a neural network and it is implicitly assumed that increasing NC improves the quality of a test suite. In an attempt to automatically generate a test suite that increases NC, we design a novel diversity promoting regularizer that can be plugged into existing adversarial attack algorithms. We then assess whether such attempts to increase NC could generate a test suite that (1) detects adversarial attacks successfully, (2) produces natural inputs, and (3) is unbiased to particular class predictions. Contrary to expectation, our extensive evaluation finds that increasing NC actually makes it harder to generate an effective test suite: higher neuron coverage leads to fewer defects detected, less natural inputs, and more biased prediction preferences. Our results invoke skepticism that increasing neuron coverage may not be a meaningful objective for generating tests for deep neural networks and call for a new test generation technique that considers defect detection, naturalness, and output impartiality in tandem. 

During the COVID-19 pandemic, forecasting COVID-19 trends to support planning and response was a priority for scientists and decision makers alike. In the United States, COVID-19 forecasting was coordinated by a large group of universities, companies, and government entities led by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the US COVID-19 Forecast Hub (https://covid19forecasthub.org). We evaluated approximately 9.7 million forecasts of weekly state-level COVID-19 cases for predictions 1–4 weeks into the future submitted by 24 teams from August 2020 to December 2021. We assessed coverage of central prediction intervals and weighted interval scores (WIS), adjusting for missing forecasts relative to a baseline forecast, and used a Gaussian generalized estimating equation (GEE) model to evaluate differences in skill across epidemic phases that were defined by the effective reproduction number. Overall, we found high variation in skill across individual models, with ensemble-based forecasts outperforming other approaches. Forecast skill relative to the baseline was generally higher for larger jurisdictions (e.g., states compared to counties). Over time, forecasts generally performed worst in periods of rapid changes in reported cases (either in increasing or decreasing epidemic phases) with 95% prediction interval coverage dropping below 50% during the growth phases of the winter 2020, Delta, and Omicron waves. Ideally, case forecasts could serve as a leading indicator of changes in transmission dynamics. However, while most COVID-19 case forecasts outperformed a naïve baseline model, even the most accurate case forecasts were unreliable in key phases. Further research could improve forecasts of leading indicators, like COVID-19 cases, by leveraging additional real-time data, addressing performance across phases, improving the characterization of forecast confidence, and ensuring that forecasts were coherent across spatial scales. In the meantime, it is critical for forecast users to appreciate current limitations and use a broad set of indicators to inform pandemic-related decision making.