MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411902254 · doi:10.7717/peerj-cs.2985

DLProv: a suite of provenance services for deep learning workflow analyses

2025· article· en· W4411902254 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Débora Pina, Liliane Kunstmann, Adriane Chapman, Daniel de Oliveira, Marta Mattoso

Bibliographic record

VenuePeerJ Computer Science · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicScientific Computing and Data Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersConselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico
KeywordsSuiteProvenanceWorkflowComputer scienceWorld Wide WebGeologyGeochemistryDatabaseArchaeologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Deep learning (DL) workflows consist of multiple interdependent and repetitive steps, including data preparation, model training, evaluation, and deployment. Each step involves decisions impacting the final model’s performance, interpretability, and applicability. These models rely on data, preprocessing operations, and configuration, underscoring the need for mechanisms to ease the analysis throughout the entire life cycle—from model generation and selection to deployment. Moreover, ensuring trust, reproducibility, and transparency becomes important as DL models transition into production environments. Traceability across the steps of the DL workflow is essential to address these challenges. However, existing traceability solutions often present limitations. Many fail to integrate the steps of the DL workflow, focusing on either data preparation or model training. Additionally, they frequently rely on proprietary formats to represent traceability data and rarely produce a provenance document that can accompany the model into production. To bridge these gaps, we present DLProv, a suite of provenance services designed to ensure end-to-end traceability across DL workflows. DLProv supports structured query language (SQL)-based querying during training and generates provenance graphs that capture data preparation steps, model training, and evaluation. These provenance graphs comply with the PROV de facto standard, ensuring interoperability across different environments. One of the key strengths of DLProv lies in its framework-agnostic architecture. The suite’s services can be invoked independently of the DL framework, enabling integration across several training and deployment workflows. Furthermore, DLProv includes specialized instances designed for specific DL frameworks, such as Keras and physics-informed neural networks (PINNs), offering adaptability to a wide range of applications. We evaluated DLProv using well-established datasets, including Modified National Institute of Standards and Technology (MNIST) and Canadian Institute for Advanced Research (CIFAR)-100. These datasets were chosen to illustrate the suite’s capability to capture and manage provenance data across tasks of varying complexity, from basic image classification to more complex DL workflows. Additionally, we evaluated DLProv within a handwritten transcription workflow, further showcasing its flexibility. Across all these use cases, DLProv showed its ability to ease SQL-based queries during model training while maintaining framework independence. An important aspect of our evaluation was measuring the overhead introduced by integrating DLProv into DL workflows. The results showed a maximum overhead of 1.4% in execution time, highlighting the suite’s minimal impact on DL workflow performance. For comparative analysis, we benchmarked this overhead against MLflow, further reinforcing DLProv’s suitability for real-world DL applications.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.042
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Software · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.057

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.042
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0060.008
Open science0.0040.009
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.007

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 head0.106
GPT teacher head0.436
Teacher spread0.329 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreSoftware

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

Citations5
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePeerJ Computer ScienceSame topicScientific Computing and Data ManagementFrench-language works237,207