Training Mixed-Monotone Neural Networks for Verification Without Set Propagation
Organizations: Technical University of Munich
Abstract
Most formal verification approaches for neural networks conservatively enclose the output set of the neural network. However, computing a tight output enclosure is in general computationally hard. We sidestep this challenge with a novel neural network architecture that realizes mixed-monotone functions as the difference of monotone subnetworks. By utilizing the theory on mixed-monotone systems, this reduces the computation of a tight output enclosure from complicated set propagation to two simple forward passes of opposite corners of an input interval. Moreover, because the size of the resulting enclosure is a closed-form function of the weights of the neural network, we can directly minimize it during training. We prove a lower bound on the size of any such enclosure, given by the total variation of the represented function generalized to several inputs, which makes it possible to compare the tightness of the enclosure against the optimum. Our evaluation on regression and dynamical-system benchmarks demonstrates that our training reduces the enclosure size to within 0.5% of the lower bound without sacrificing prediction accuracy. Computing our enclosure is orders of magnitude faster than CROWN and -CROWN and on deep networks it is also tighter than zonotope propagation and CROWN, while its size exceeds that of -CROWN by only 5.1%.
Figures & tables
| Benchmark | #Layers | Accuracy | |||
| Baseline | Ours | ||||
| Scalar analytic | 2 | ||||
| 4 | |||||
| 8 | |||||
| Pendulum | 3 | ||||
| 8 | |||||
| #Layers | Framework | Method | Tightness | Runtime | ||
| [ ms ] | [relative to ours] | |||||
| 4 | auto_LiRPA | Ours (exported) | ||||
| IBP | ||||||
| CROWN | ||||||
| -CROWN | ||||||
| CORA | Ours | |||||
| Benchmark | Accuracy | Tightness | |||
| Scalar analytic | |||||
| Tanks | |||||
| #Input Dims | Tightness | |||
| Zonotope | Ours | |||
| 2 | ||||
| 20 | ||||
| 100 | ||||
| #Layers | Tightness | Crossover Radius [median (range)] | |||
| Zonotope | Ours | ||||
| 2 | – | ||||
| 3 | ( – ) | ||||
| 4 | ( – ) | ||||
| 6 | ( – ) | ||||
| 8 | ( – ) | ||||
Appendix figures & tables4 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Experiment | Benchmark | #Layers | #Seeds | #Epochs | #Input Sets | |
| Tab. 1 and 7 | Scalar analytic | 2, 3, 4, 6, 8 | 0 | 10 | 120 | – |
| Tab. 1 | Pendulum, Tanks | 3, 8 | 0 | 10 | 100 | – |
| Tab. 2 and 8 | Scalar analytic | 2, 3, 4, 6, 8 | 0 | 5 | 120 | 100 |
| Tab. 3 | Scalar analytic, Tanks | 3 | 0–1 | 3 | 80 | 150 |
| Tab. 4 and 9 | Multi-input analytic | 4 | 0.05 | 5 | 120 | 100 |
| Tab. 5 | Scalar analytic | 2, 3, 4, 6, 8 | 0 | 10 | 120 | 150 |
| #Layers | Architecture | |||||||
| Baseline (unconstr.) | Ours (sign-constr) | Lip.-res. (monotone) Kitouni et al. (2023) | Lip. (non-monotone) | |||||
| 2 | ||||||||
| 3 | ||||||||
| 4 | ||||||||
| 6 | ||||||||
| 8 | ||||||||
| #Layers | Tightness | Runtime relative to ours | ||||||||||
| Ours / IBP | Zonotope | CROWN | -CROWN | IBP | Zono. | CROWN | -CR. | |||||
| 2 | ||||||||||||
| 3 | ||||||||||||
| 4 | ||||||||||||
| 6 | ||||||||||||
| 8 | ||||||||||||
| Perturbed | Input Set Size | Ours | Lip.-res. Kitouni et al. (2023) | Zonotope | ||||
| all | ||||||||
Neural Network Verification
Neural network verification develops methods to prove whether networks satisfy properties such as robustness, safety, and bounded output behavior.
See all 126 papers