Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

Towards Enhancing the Reproducibility of Deep Learning Bugs: An Empirical Study

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2401.03069 v4 pith:RJRCTZ54 submitted 2024-01-05 cs.SE cs.LG

classification cs.SEcs.LG
keywords bugsdeeplearningreproducibilityactionseditinformationuseful
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
read the original abstract

Context: Deep learning has achieved remarkable progress in various domains. However, like any software system, deep learning systems contain bugs, some of which can have severe impacts, as evidenced by crashes involving autonomous vehicles. Despite substantial advancements in deep learning techniques, little research has focused on reproducing deep learning bugs, which is an essential step for their resolution. Existing literature suggests that only 3% of deep learning bugs are reproducible, underscoring the need for further research. Objective: This paper examines the reproducibility of deep learning bugs. We identify edit actions and useful information that could improve the reproducibility of deep learning bugs. Method: First, we construct a dataset of 668 deep-learning bugs from Stack Overflow and GitHub across three frameworks and 22 architectures. Second, out of the 668 bugs, we select 165 bugs using stratified sampling and attempt to determine their reproducibility. While reproducing these bugs, we identify edit actions and useful information for their reproduction. Third, we used the Apriori algorithm to identify useful information and edit actions required to reproduce specific types of bugs. Finally, we conducted a user study involving 22 developers to assess the effectiveness of our findings in real-life settings. Results: We successfully reproduced 148 out of 165 bugs attempted. We identified ten edit actions and five useful types of component information that can help us reproduce the deep learning bugs. With the help of our findings, the developers were able to reproduce 22.92% more bugs and reduce their reproduction time by 24.35%. Conclusions: Our research addresses the critical issue of deep learning bug reproducibility. Practitioners and researchers can leverage our findings to improve deep learning bug reproducibility.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Real Faults in Deep Learning Fault Benchmarks: How Real Are They?

    cs.SE 2024-12 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Only 58 of 314 eligible deep learning benchmark faults meet all four realism conditions, and only 86 of 165 reproduction attempts succeed, suggesting most 'real' DL fault benchmarks are not faithful to their sources.

  2. Fault Localization in Deep Learning-based Software: A System-level Approach

    cs.SE 2024-11 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    FL4Deep localizes faults across the full deep learning pipeline using a knowledge graph built from static and dynamic code information, outperforming four prior tools on three of six fault types.

Pith tools