Supporting Safety Analysis of Image-processing DNNs through Clustering-based Approaches
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The adoption of deep neural networks (DNNs) in safety-critical contexts is often prevented by the lack of effective means to explain their results, especially when they are erroneous. In our previous work, we proposed a white-box approach (HUDD) and a black-box approach (SAFE) to automatically characterize DNN failures. They both identify clusters of similar images from a potentially large set of images leading to DNN failures. However, the analysis pipelines for HUDD and SAFE were instantiated in specific ways according to common practices, deferring the analysis of other pipelines to future work. In this article, we report on an empirical evaluation of 99 different pipelines for root cause analysis of DNN failures. They combine transfer learning, autoencoders, heatmaps of neuron relevance, dimensionality reduction techniques, and different clustering algorithms. Our results show that the best pipeline combines transfer learning, DBSCAN, and UMAP. It leads to clusters almost exclusively capturing images of the same failure scenario, thus facilitating root cause analysis. Further, it generates distinct clusters for each root cause of failure, thus enabling engineers to detect all the unsafe scenarios. Interestingly, these results hold even for failure scenarios that are only observed in a small percentage of the failing images.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it