REVIEW 2 cited by
A Survey of Safety and Trustworthiness of Deep Neural Networks: Verification, Testing, Adversarial Attack and Defence, and Interpretability
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
read the original abstract
In the past few years, significant progress has been made on deep neural networks (DNNs) in achieving human-level performance on several long-standing tasks. With the broader deployment of DNNs on various applications, the concerns over their safety and trustworthiness have been raised in public, especially after the widely reported fatal incidents involving self-driving cars. Research to address these concerns is particularly active, with a significant number of papers released in the past few years. This survey paper conducts a review of the current research effort into making DNNs safe and trustworthy, by focusing on four aspects: verification, testing, adversarial attack and defence, and interpretability. In total, we survey 202 papers, most of which were published after 2017.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
WeedNet: A Foundation Model-Based Global-to-Local AI Approach for Real-Time Weed Species Identification and Classification
An AI model trained on citizen science images identifies over 1,500 weed species globally and fine-tunes to regional weed communities with high accuracy.
-
Synthetic Poisoning Attacks: The Impact of Poisoned MRI Image on U-Net Brain Tumor Segmentation
Adding GAN-generated synthetic MRI to U-Net training data degrades brain tumor segmentation performance, but the paper's evidence for a monotonic, significant decline is weakened by contradictory table values and conf...
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.