Arachne: Search-Based Repair of Deep Neural Networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The rapid and widespread adoption of Deep Neural Networks (DNNs) has called for ways to test their behaviour, and many testing approaches have successfully revealed misbehaviour of DNNs. However, it is relatively unclear what one can do to correct such behaviour after revelation, as retraining involves costly data collection and does not guarantee to fix the underlying issue. This article introduces Arachne, a novel program repair technique for DNNs, which directly repairs DNNs using their input-output pairs as a specification. Arachne localises neural weights on which it can generate effective patches and uses differential evolution to optimise the localised weights and correct the misbehaviour. An empirical study using different benchmarks shows that Arachne can fix specific misclassifications of a DNN without reducing general accuracy significantly. On average, patches generated by Arachne generalise to 61.3% of unseen misbehaviour, whereas those by a state-of-the-art DNN repair technique generalise only to 10.2% and sometimes to none while taking tens of times more than Arachne. We also show that Arachne can address fairness issues by debiasing a gender classification model. Finally, we successfully apply Arachne to a text sentiment model to show that it generalises beyond convolutional neural networks.
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 | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".