<i>DeepRepair:</i> Style-Guided Repairing for Deep Neural Networks in the Real-World Operational Environment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Deep neural networks (DNNs) are continuously expanding their application to various domains due to their high performance. Nevertheless, a well-trained DNN after deployment could oftentimes raise errors during practical use in the operational environment due to the mismatching between distributions of the training dataset and the potential unknown noise factors in the operational environment, e.g., weather, blur, noise, etc. Hence, it poses a rather important problem for the DNNs’ real-world applications: how to repair the deployed DNNs for correcting the failure samples under the deployed operational environment while not harming their capability of handling normal or clean data with limited failure samples we can collect. In this article, we propose astyle-guided data augmentation for repairing DNN in the operational environment, which learns and introduces the unknown failure patterns within the failure samples into the training data via the style transfer. Moreover, we further propose theclustering-based failure data generationfor much more effective style-guided data augmentation. We conduct a large-scale evaluation with 15 degradation factors that may happen in the real world and compare with four state-of-the-art data augmentation methods and two DNN repairing methods. Our technique successfully repairs three convolutional neural networks and two recurrent neural networks with averaging 62.88% and 39.02% accuracy enhancements on the 15 failure patterns, respectively, achieving higher repairing performance than state-of-the-art repairing methods on the most failure patterns with even better accuracy on clean datasets.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".