Repairs and Breaks Prediction for Deep Neural Networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the increasing prevalence of software incorporating deep neural networks (DNNs), quality assurance for these software systems has become a crucial concern. To this end, various methods have been proposed to repair the misbehavior of DNNs by modifying their weights. However, these repair methods may not meet the developer’s needs for a given dataset and model. In this study, we build prediction models for repair outcomes (i.e., repairs and breaks) to help determine whether the repair method is likely to work. By using our prediction models, developers and operators of DNNs can decide whether or not to apply a repair method, and if so, which method to use. Our prediction models utilize four metrics as explanatory metrics that represent the confidence or ambiguity in the DNN predictions. We experimented with four repair methods and 10 datasets. The experimental results demonstrate that our prediction models successfully select a repair method that meets developers’ needs in 16 out of 24 cases, resulting in an average time saving of 16.29% compared to the naive method. Based on these results, our prediction models can reduce costs for developers and operators when deciding whether to employ repair methods for real-world applications of DNNs.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".