skip to main content

Attention:

The NSF Public Access Repository (NSF-PAR) system and access will be unavailable from 11:00 PM ET on Friday, April 12 until 2:00 AM ET on Saturday, April 13 due to maintenance. We apologize for the inconvenience.


Title: The Octatope Abstract Domain for Verification of Neural Networks.
Efficient verification algorithms for neural networks often depend on various abstract domains such as intervals, zonotopes, and linear star sets. The choice of the abstract domain presents an expressiveness vs. scalability trade-off: simpler domains are less precise but yield faster algorithms. This paper investigates the octatope abstract domain in the context of neural net verification. Octatopes are affine transformations of n-dimensional octagons—sets of unit-two-variable-per-inequality (UTVPI) constraints. Octatopes generalize the idea of zonotopes which can be viewed as an affine transformation of a box. On the other hand, octatopes can be considered as a restriction of linear star set, which are affine transformations of arbitrary H-Polytopes. This distinction places octatopes firmly between zonotopes and star sets in their expressive power, but what about the efficiency of decision procedures? An important analysis problem for neural networks is the exact range computation problem that asks to compute the exact set of possible outputs given a set of possible inputs. For this, three computational procedures are needed: 1) optimization of a linear cost function; 2) affine mapping; and 3) over-approximating the intersection with a half-space. While zonotopes allow an efficient solution for these approaches, star sets solves these procedures via linear programming. We show that these operations are faster for octatopes than the more expressive linear star sets. For octatopes, we reduce these problems to min-cost flow problems, which can be solved in strongly polynomial time using the Out-of-Kilter algorithm. Evaluating exact range computation on several ACAS Xu neural network benchmarks, we find that octatopes show promise as a practical abstract domain for neural network verification.  more » « less
Award ID(s):
2146563
NSF-PAR ID:
10419676
Author(s) / Creator(s):
; ; ; ; ;
Editor(s):
Chechik, M.; Katoen, JP.; Leucker, M.
Date Published:
Journal Name:
Formal Methods. FM 2023.
Page Range / eLocation ID:
454–472
Format(s):
Medium: X
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. Deep Neural Networks (DNNs) have become a popular instrument for solving various real-world problems. DNNs’ sophisticated structure allows them to learn complex representations and features. For this reason, Binary Neural Networks (BNNs) are widely used on edge devices, such as microcomputers. However, architecture specifics and floating-point number usage result in an increased computational operations complexity. Like other DNNs, BNNs are vulnerable to adversarial attacks; even a small perturbation to the input set may lead to an errant output. Unfortunately, only a few approaches have been proposed for verifying BNNs.This paper proposes an approach to verify BNNs on continuous input space using star reachability analysis. Our approach can compute both exact and overapproximate reachable sets of BNNs with Sign activation functions and use them for verification. The proposed approach is also efficient in constructing a complete set of counterexamples in case a network is unsafe. We implemented our approach in NNV, a neural network verification tool for DNNs and learning-enabled Cyber-Physical Systems. The experimental results show that our star-based approach is less conservative, more efficient, and scalable than the recent SMT-based method implemented in Marabou. We also provide a comparison with a quantization-based tool EEVBNN. 
    more » « less
  2. Backward reachability analysis is essential to synthesizing controllers that ensure the correctness of closed-loop systems. This paper is concerned with developing scalable algorithms that under-approximate the backward reachable sets, for discrete-time uncertain linear and nonlinear systems. Our algorithm sequentially linearizes the dynamics, and uses constrained zonotopes for set representation and computation. The main technical ingredient of our algorithm is an efficient way to under-approximate the Minkowski difference between a constrained zonotopic minuend and a zonotopic subtrahend, which consists of all possible values of the uncertainties and the linearization error. This Minkowski difference needs to be represented as a constrained zonotope to enable subsequent computation, but, as we show, it is impossible to find a polynomial-size representation for it in polynomial time. Our algorithm finds a polynomial-size under-approximation in polynomial time. We further analyze the conservatism of this under-approximation technique, and show that it is exact under some conditions. Based on the developed Minkowski difference technique, we detail two backward reachable set computation algorithms to control the linearization error and incorporate nonconvex state constraints. Several examples illustrate the effectiveness of our algorithms. 
    more » « less
  3. The proliferation of neural networks in safety-critical applications necessitates the development of effective methods to ensure their safety. This letter presents a novel approach for computing the exact backward reachable sets of neural feedback systems with known linear system models based on hybrid zonotopes. It is shown that the input-output relationship imposed by a ReLU-activated neural network can be exactly described by a hybrid zonotope-represented graph set. Based on that, the one-step exact backward reachable set of a neural feedback system is computed as a hybrid zonotope in the closed form. In addition, a necessary and sufficient condition is formulated as a mixed-integer linear program to certify whether the trajectories of a neural feedback system can avoid unsafe regions in finite time. Numerical examples are provided to demonstrate the efficiency of the proposed approach. 
    more » « less
  4. To verify safety and robustness of neural networks, researchers have successfully applied abstract interpretation , primarily using the interval abstract domain. In this paper, we study the theoretical power and limits of the interval domain for neural-network verification. First, we introduce the interval universal approximation (IUA) theorem. IUA shows that neural networks not only can approximate any continuous function f (universal approximation) as we have known for decades, but we can find a neural network, using any well-behaved activation function, whose interval bounds are an arbitrarily close approximation of the set semantics of f (the result of applying f to a set of inputs). We call this notion of approximation interval approximation . Our theorem generalizes the recent result of Baader et al. from ReLUs to a rich class of activation functions that we call squashable functions . Additionally, the IUA theorem implies that we can always construct provably robust neural networks under ℓ ∞ -norm using almost any practical activation function. Second, we study the computational complexity of constructing neural networks that are amenable to precise interval analysis. This is a crucial question, as our constructive proof of IUA is exponential in the size of the approximation domain. We boil this question down to the problem of approximating the range of a neural network with squashable activation functions. We show that the range approximation problem (RA) is a Δ 2 -intermediate problem, which is strictly harder than NP -complete problems, assuming coNP ⊄ NP . As a result, IUA is an inherently hard problem : No matter what abstract domain or computational tools we consider to achieve interval approximation, there is no efficient construction of such a universal approximator. This implies that it is hard to construct a provably robust network, even if we have a robust network to start with. 
    more » « less
  5. Obeid, I. ; Selesnik, I. ; Picone, J. (Ed.)
    The Neuronix high-performance computing cluster allows us to conduct extensive machine learning experiments on big data [1]. This heterogeneous cluster uses innovative scheduling technology, Slurm [2], that manages a network of CPUs and graphics processing units (GPUs). The GPU farm consists of a variety of processors ranging from low-end consumer grade devices such as the Nvidia GTX 970 to higher-end devices such as the GeForce RTX 2080. These GPUs are essential to our research since they allow extremely compute-intensive deep learning tasks to be executed on massive data resources such as the TUH EEG Corpus [2]. We use TensorFlow [3] as the core machine learning library for our deep learning systems, and routinely employ multiple GPUs to accelerate the training process. Reproducible results are essential to machine learning research. Reproducibility in this context means the ability to replicate an existing experiment – performance metrics such as error rates should be identical and floating-point calculations should match closely. Three examples of ways we typically expect an experiment to be replicable are: (1) The same job run on the same processor should produce the same results each time it is run. (2) A job run on a CPU and GPU should produce identical results. (3) A job should produce comparable results if the data is presented in a different order. System optimization requires an ability to directly compare error rates for algorithms evaluated under comparable operating conditions. However, it is a difficult task to exactly reproduce the results for large, complex deep learning systems that often require more than a trillion calculations per experiment [5]. This is a fairly well-known issue and one we will explore in this poster. Researchers must be able to replicate results on a specific data set to establish the integrity of an implementation. They can then use that implementation as a baseline for comparison purposes. A lack of reproducibility makes it very difficult to debug algorithms and validate changes to the system. Equally important, since many results in deep learning research are dependent on the order in which the system is exposed to the data, the specific processors used, and even the order in which those processors are accessed, it becomes a challenging problem to compare two algorithms since each system must be individually optimized for a specific data set or processor. This is extremely time-consuming for algorithm research in which a single run often taxes a computing environment to its limits. Well-known techniques such as cross-validation [5,6] can be used to mitigate these effects, but this is also computationally expensive. These issues are further compounded by the fact that most deep learning algorithms are susceptible to the way computational noise propagates through the system. GPUs are particularly notorious for this because, in a clustered environment, it becomes more difficult to control which processors are used at various points in time. Another equally frustrating issue is that upgrades to the deep learning package, such as the transition from TensorFlow v1.9 to v1.13, can also result in large fluctuations in error rates when re-running the same experiment. Since TensorFlow is constantly updating functions to support GPU use, maintaining an historical archive of experimental results that can be used to calibrate algorithm research is quite a challenge. This makes it very difficult to optimize the system or select the best configurations. The overall impact of all of these issues described above is significant as error rates can fluctuate by as much as 25% due to these types of computational issues. Cross-validation is one technique used to mitigate this, but that is expensive since you need to do multiple runs over the data, which further taxes a computing infrastructure already running at max capacity. GPUs are preferred when training a large network since these systems train at least two orders of magnitude faster than CPUs [7]. Large-scale experiments are simply not feasible without using GPUs. However, there is a tradeoff to gain this performance. Since all our GPUs use the NVIDIA CUDA® Deep Neural Network library (cuDNN) [8], a GPU-accelerated library of primitives for deep neural networks, it adds an element of randomness into the experiment. When a GPU is used to train a network in TensorFlow, it automatically searches for a cuDNN implementation. NVIDIA’s cuDNN implementation provides algorithms that increase the performance and help the model train quicker, but they are non-deterministic algorithms [9,10]. Since our networks have many complex layers, there is no easy way to avoid this randomness. Instead of comparing each epoch, we compare the average performance of the experiment because it gives us a hint of how our model is performing per experiment, and if the changes we make are efficient. In this poster, we will discuss a variety of issues related to reproducibility and introduce ways we mitigate these effects. For example, TensorFlow uses a random number generator (RNG) which is not seeded by default. TensorFlow determines the initialization point and how certain functions execute using the RNG. The solution for this is seeding all the necessary components before training the model. This forces TensorFlow to use the same initialization point and sets how certain layers work (e.g., dropout layers). However, seeding all the RNGs will not guarantee a controlled experiment. Other variables can affect the outcome of the experiment such as training using GPUs, allowing multi-threading on CPUs, using certain layers, etc. To mitigate our problems with reproducibility, we first make sure that the data is processed in the same order during training. Therefore, we save the data from the last experiment and to make sure the newer experiment follows the same order. If we allow the data to be shuffled, it can affect the performance due to how the model was exposed to the data. We also specify the float data type to be 32-bit since Python defaults to 64-bit. We try to avoid using 64-bit precision because the numbers produced by a GPU can vary significantly depending on the GPU architecture [11-13]. Controlling precision somewhat reduces differences due to computational noise even though technically it increases the amount of computational noise. We are currently developing more advanced techniques for preserving the efficiency of our training process while also maintaining the ability to reproduce models. In our poster presentation we will demonstrate these issues using some novel visualization tools, present several examples of the extent to which these issues influence research results on electroencephalography (EEG) and digital pathology experiments and introduce new ways to manage such computational issues. 
    more » « less