MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411337774 · doi:10.1109/cain66642.2025.00027

Debugging and Runtime Analysis of Neural Networks with VLMs (A Case Study)

2025· article· en· W4411337774 on OpenAlexaff
Boyue Caroline Hu, Divya Gopinath, Corina S. Păsăreanu, Nina Narodytska, Ravi Mangal, Susmit Jha

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNeural Networks and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDebuggingComputer scienceArtificial neural networkProgramming languageSoftware bugSoftware engineeringArtificial intelligenceSoftware

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Debugging of Deep Neural Networks (DNNs), particularly vision models, is very challenging due to the complex and opaque decision-making processes in these networks. In this paper, we explore multi-modal Vision-Language Models (VLMs), such as CLIP, to automatically interpret the opaque representation space of vision models using natural language. This in turn, enables a semantic analysis of model behavior using human-understandable concepts, without requiring costly human annotations. Key to our approach is the notion of semantic heatmap, that succinctly captures the statistical properties of DNNs in terms of the concepts discovered with the VLM and that are computed off-line using a held-out data set. We show the utility of semantic heatmaps for fault localization - an essential step in debugging - in vision models. Our proposed technique helps localize the fault in the network (encoder vs head) and also highlights the responsible high-level concepts, by leveraging novel differential heatmaps, which summarize the semantic differences between the correct and incorrect behaviour of the analyzed DNN. We further propose a lightweight runtime analysis to detect and filter-out defects at runtime, thus improving the reliability of the analyzed DNNs. The runtime analysis works by measuring and comparing the similarity between the heatmap computed for a new (unseen) input and the heatmaps computed a-priori for correct vs incorrect DNN behavior. We consider two types of defects: misclassifications and vulnerabilities to adversarial attacks. We demonstrate the debugging and runtime analysis on a case study involving a complex ResNet-based classifier trained on the RIVAL10 dataset.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.246 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNeural Networks and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207