SETA: Statistical Fault Attribution for Compound AI Systems

This skill enables Claude to design, implement, and apply modular robustness testing for compound AI systems — pipelines composed of multiple interconnected neural networks or ML models. Using the SETA framework (Statistical Fault Attribution), Claude instruments a multi-model pipeline to record execution traces under clean and perturbed inputs, defines per-component metamorphic relations (correctness specifications), and computes Failure Contribution scores that statistically pinpoint which component is most responsible for system-level failures. This replaces opaque end-to-end metrics with fine-grained, per-module fault attribution.

When to Use

• When a user has a multi-model AI pipeline (e.g., detection -> classification -> OCR) and wants to know which component degrades most under perturbations
• When building robustness tests for a compound AI system and the user needs more than end-to-end accuracy
• When a user asks to trace how errors propagate from one model to the next in a pipeline
• When a user wants to compare component-level robustness across different perturbation types (noise, blur, weather)
• When debugging a production ML pipeline where system accuracy drops but it is unclear which model is at fault
• When a user needs to prioritize which model in a pipeline to retrain, harden, or replace
• When designing test harnesses for safety-critical multi-network systems (autonomous vehicles, medical imaging pipelines, inspection systems)

Key Technique

Modular testing via execution traces and metamorphic relations. SETA models a compound AI system as a state-transition system S = (Q, I, Phi, F, R, S) where Q is the set of computational modules, R contains routing functions that determine which module fires next, and F holds the model functions. For each test input x, the framework records an execution trace T(x) — a sequence of nodes v = (q, x_v, y_v, S_q) capturing which module q was activated, what it received, what it produced, and how to score it. A perturbation g(x) produces a perturbed trace T(g(x)). By aligning nodes across traces using structural identifiers, SETA compares each component's behavior under clean vs. perturbed conditions.

Per-component correctness via composite metamorphic relations. Instead of a single end-to-end metric, each module i gets a composite score S_i(x, x_tilde) = product of M_ij(x, x_tilde) over all its metamorphic relations. These relations encode domain-specific invariants: "detections should be a subset of originals" (for detectors), "class label should not change" (for classifiers), "IoU must exceed 0.9 for persisting detections," or "Levenshtein distance below threshold" (for OCR). The system-level score is S(x, x_tilde) = product of all S_i. A system failure occurs when S = 0.