Researcher profile

Mohammad Wardat

Mohammad Wardat contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 13 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
2works
0followers
1topics
3close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

2 published item(s)

preprint2022arXiv

The Art and Practice of Data Science Pipelines: A Comprehensive Study of Data Science Pipelines In Theory, In-The-Small, and In-The-Large

Increasingly larger number of software systems today are including data science components for descriptive, predictive, and prescriptive analytics. The collection of data science stages from acquisition, to cleaning/curation, to modeling, and so on are referred to as data science pipelines. To facilitate research and practice on data science pipelines, it is essential to understand their nature. What are the typical stages of a data science pipeline? How are they connected? Do the pipelines differ in the theoretical representations and that in the practice? Today we do not fully understand these architectural characteristics of data science pipelines. In this work, we present a three-pronged comprehensive study to answer this for the state-of-the-art, data science in-the-small, and data science in-the-large. Our study analyzes three datasets: a collection of 71 proposals for data science pipelines and related concepts in theory, a collection of over 105 implementations of curated data science pipelines from Kaggle competitions to understand data science in-the-small, and a collection of 21 mature data science projects from GitHub to understand data science in-the-large. Our study has led to three representations of data science pipelines that capture the essence of our subjects in theory, in-the-small, and in-the-large.

preprint2021arXiv

DeepLocalize: Fault Localization for Deep Neural Networks

Deep neural networks (DNNs) are becoming an integral part of most software systems. Previous work has shown that DNNs have bugs. Unfortunately, existing debugging techniques do not support localizing DNN bugs because of the lack of understanding of model behaviors. The entire DNN model appears as a black box. To address these problems, we propose an approach that automatically determines whether the model is buggy or not, and identifies the root causes. Our key insight is that historic trends in values propagated between layers can be analyzed to identify faults, and localize faults. To that end, we first enable dynamic analysis of deep learning applications: by converting it into an imperative representation and alternatively using a callback mechanism. Both mechanisms allows us to insert probes that enable dynamic analysis over the traces produced by the DNN while it is being trained on the training data. We then conduct dynamic analysis over the traces to identify the faulty layer that causes the error. We propose an algorithm for identifying root causes by capturing any numerical error and monitoring the model during training and finding the relevance of every layer on the DNN outcome. We have collected a benchmark containing 40 buggy models and patches that contain real errors in deep learning applications from Stack Overflow and GitHub. Our benchmark can be used to evaluate automated debugging tools and repair techniques. We have evaluated our approach using this DNN bug-and-patch benchmark, and the results showed that our approach is much more effective than the existing debugging approach used in the state of the practice Keras library. For 34 out of 40 cases, our approach was able to detect faults whereas the best debugging approach provided by Keras detected 32 out of 40 faults. Our approach was able to localize 21 out of 40 bugs whereas Keras did not localize any faults.