Automatic Fault Detection for Deep Learning Programs Using Graph Transformations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nowadays, we are witnessing an increasing demand in both corporates and academia for exploiting Deep Learning ( DL ) to solve complex real-world problems. A DL program encodes the network structure of a desirable DL model and the process by which the model learns from the training dataset. Like any software, a DL program can be faulty, which implies substantial challenges of software quality assurance, especially in safety-critical domains. It is therefore crucial to equip DL development teams with efficient fault detection techniques and tools. In this article, we propose NeuraLint , a model-based fault detection approach for DL programs, using meta-modeling and graph transformations. First, we design a meta-model for DL programs that includes their base skeleton and fundamental properties. Then, we construct a graph-based verification process that covers 23 rules defined on top of the meta-model and implemented as graph transformations to detect faults and design inefficiencies in the generated models (i.e., instances of the meta-model). First, the proposed approach is evaluated by finding faults and design inefficiencies in 28 synthesized examples built from common problems reported in the literature. Then NeuraLint successfully finds 64 faults and design inefficiencies in 34 real-world DL programs extracted from Stack Overflow posts and GitHub repositories. The results show that NeuraLint effectively detects faults and design issues in both synthesized and real-world examples with a recall of 70.5% and a precision of 100%. Although the proposed meta-model is designed for feedforward neural networks, it can be extended to support other neural network architectures such as recurrent neural networks. Researchers can also expand our set of verification rules to cover more types of issues in DL programs.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".