MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389209067 · doi:10.1145/3611643.3616333

DecompoVision: Reliability Analysis of Machine Vision Components through Decomposition and Reuse

2023· article· en· W4389209067 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdversarial Robustness in Machine Learning
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceReliability (semiconductor)Artificial intelligenceBenchmark (surveying)ReuseObject detectionMachine visionTask (project management)SegmentationModular designMachine learningComputer visionReliability engineeringEngineeringProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Analyzing reliability of Machine Vision Components (MVC) against scene changes (such as rain or fog) in their operational environment is crucial for safety-critical applications. Safety analysis relies on the availability of precisely specified and, ideally, machine-verifiable requirements. The state-of-the-art reliability framework ICRAF developed machine-verifiable requirements obtained using human performance data. However, ICRAF is limited to analyzing reliability of MVCs solving simple vision tasks, such as image classification. Yet, many real-world safety-critical systems require solving more complex vision tasks, such as object detection and instance segmentation. Fortunately, many complex vision tasks (which we call “c-tasks”) can be represented as a sequence of simple vision subtasks. For instance, object detection can be decomposed as object localization followed by classification. Based on this fact, in this paper, we show that the analysis of c-tasks can also be decomposed as a sequential analysis of their simple subtasks, which allows us to apply existing techniques for analyzing simple vision tasks. Specifically, we propose a modular reliability framework, DecompoVision, that decomposes: (1) the problem of solving a c-task, (2) the reliability requirements, and (3) the reliability analysis, and, as a result, provides deeper insights into MVC reliability. DecompoVision extends ICRAF to handle complex vision tasks and enables reuse of existing artifacts across different c-tasks. We capture new reliability gaps by checking our requirements on 13 widely used object detection MVCs, and, for the first time, benchmark segmentation MVCs.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.358
Threshold uncertainty score0.542

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.313 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it