Self-Checking Deep Neural Networks in Deployment
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The widespread adoption of Deep Neural Networks (DNNs) in important domains raises questions about the trustworthiness of DNN outputs. Even a highly accurate DNN will make mistakes some of the time, and in settings like self-driving vehicles these mistakes must be quickly detected and properly dealt with in deployment. Just as our community has developed effective techniques and mechanisms to monitor and check programmed components, we believe it is now necessary to do the same for DNNs. In this paper we present DNN self-checking as a process by which internal DNN layer features are used to check DNN predictions. We detail SelfChecker, a self-checking system that monitors DNN outputs and triggers an alarm if the internal layer features of the model are inconsistent with the final prediction. SelfChecker also provides advice in the form of an alternative prediction. We evaluated SelfChecker on four popular image datasets and three DNN models and found that SelfChecker triggers correct alarms on 60.56% of wrong DNN predictions, and false alarms on 2.04% of correct DNN predictions. This is a substantial improvement over prior work (SelfOracle, Dissector, and ConfidNet). In experiments with self-driving car scenarios, SelfChecker triggers more correct alarms than SelfOracle for two DNN models (DAVE-2 and Chauffeur) with comparable false alarms. Our implementation is available as open source.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it