Supporting Safety Analysis of Image-processing DNNs through Clustering-based Approaches
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.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".