Simulator-based Explanation and Debugging of Hazard-triggering Events in DNN-based Safety-critical Systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When Deep Neural Networks (DNNs) are used in safety-critical systems, engineers should determine the safety risks associated with failures (i.e., erroneous outputs) observed during testing. For DNNs processing images, engineers visually inspect all failure-inducing images to determine common characteristics among them. Such characteristics correspond to hazard-triggering events (e.g., low illumination) that are essential inputs for safety analysis. Though informative, such activity is expensive and error prone. To support such safety analysis practices, we propose Simulator-based Explanations for DNN failurEs (SEDE), a technique that generates readable descriptions for commonalities in failure-inducing, real-world images and improves the DNN through effective retraining. SEDE leverages the availability of simulators, which are commonly used for cyber-physical systems. It relies on genetic algorithms to drive simulators toward the generation of images that are similar to failure-inducing, real-world images in the test set; it then employs rule learning algorithms to derive expressions that capture commonalities in terms of simulator parameter values. The derived expressions are then used to generate additional images to retrain and improve the DNN. With DNNs performing in-car sensing tasks, SEDE successfully characterized hazard-triggering events leading to a DNN accuracy drop. Also, SEDE enabled retraining leading to significant improvements in DNN accuracy, up to 18 percentage points.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".