Similar articles

Abstract: Robustness of deep neural networks (DNNs) has caused great concerns in the academic and industrial communities, especially in safety-critical domains. Instead of verifying whether the robustness property holds or not in certain neural networks, this paper focuses on training robust neural networks with respect to given perturbations. State-of-the-art training methods, interval bound propagation (IBP) and CROWN-IBP, perform well with respect to small perturbations, but their performance declines significantly in large perturbation cases, which is termed "drawdown risk" in this paper. Specifically, drawdown risk refers to the phenomenon that IBP-family training methods cannot provide expected robust neural networks in larger perturbation cases, as in smaller perturbation cases. To alleviate the unexpected drawdown risk, we propose a global and monotonically decreasing robustness training strategy that takes multiple perturbations into account during each training epoch (global robustness training), and the corresponding robustness losses are combined with monotonically decreasing weights (monotonically decreasing robustness training). With experimental demonstrations, our presented strategy maintains performance on small perturbations and the drawdown risk on large perturbations is alleviated to a great extent. It is also noteworthy that our training method achieves higher model accuracy than the original training methods, which means that our presented training strategy gives more balanced consideration to robustness and accuracy.

基于全局和单调递减鲁棒性策略的鲁棒神经网络训练方法

[1]Balunović M, Baader M, Singh G, et al., 2019. Certifying geometric robustness of neural networks. Proc 33^rd Int Conf on Neural Information Processing Systems, Article 1372.

[2]Bojarski M, Testa DD, Dworakowski D, et al., 2016. End to end learning for self-driving cars. https://arxiv.org/abs/1604.07316

[3]Casadio M, Komendantskaya E, Daggitt ML, et al., 2022. Neural network robustness as a verification property: a principled case study. Proc 34^th Int Conf on Computer Aided Verification, p.219-231.

[4]Chen XL, He KM, 2021. Exploring simple Siamese representation learning. Proc IEEE/CVF Conf on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, p.15750-15758.

[5]Cohen JM, Rosenfeld E, Kolter JZ, 2019. Certified adversarial robustness via randomized smoothing. Proc 36^th Int Conf on Machine Learning, p.1310-1320.

[6]Devlin J, Chang MW, Lee K, et al., 2018. BERT: pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. Proc Conf of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, p.4171-4186.

[7]Du TY, Ji SL, Shen LJ, et al., 2021. Cert-RNN: towards certifying the robustness of recurrent neural networks. Proc ACM SIGSAC Conf on Computer and Communications Security, p.516-534.

[8]Duda RO, Hart PE, Stork DG, 2001. Pattern Classification (2^nd Ed.). Wiley, New York, USA.

[9]Dvijotham K, Gowal S, Stanforth R, et al., 2018. Training verified learners with learned verifiers. https://arxiv.org/abs/1805.10265

[10]Ehlers R, 2017. Formal verification of piece-wise linear feed-forward neural networks. Proc 15^th Int Symp on Automated Technology for Verification and Analysis, p.269-286.

[11]Goodfellow IJ, Shlens J, Szegedy C, 2015. Explaining and harnessing adversarial examples. Proc 3^rd Int Conf on Learning Representations.

[12]Gowal S, Dvijotham K, Stanforth R, et al., 2018. On the effectiveness of interval bound propagation for training verifiably robust models. https://arxiv.org/abs/1810.12715

[13]Guo XW, Wan WJ, Zhang ZD, et al., 2021. Eager falsification for accelerating robustness verification of deep neural networks. Proc 32^nd IEEE Int Symp on Software Reliability Engineering, p.345-356.

[14]Hein M, Andriushchenko M, 2017. Formal guarantees on the robustness of a classifier against adversarial manipulation. Proc 31^st Int Conf on Neural Information Processing Systems, p.2266-2276.

[15]Huster T, Chiang CYJ, Chadha R, 2019. Limitations of the Lipschitz constant as a defense against adversarial examples. Proc Joint European Conf on Machine Learning and Knowledge Discovery in Databases, p.16-29.

[16]Katz G, Barrett C, Dill DL, et al., 2017. Reluplex: an efficient SMT solver for verifying deep neural networks. Proc 29^th Int Conf on Computer Aided Verification, p.97-117.

[17]Ko CY, Lyu ZY, Weng L, et al., 2019. POPQORN: quantifying robustness of recurrent neural networks. Proc 36^th Int Conf on Machine Learning, p.3468-3477.

[18]Lecuyer M, Atlidakis V, Geambasu R, et al., 2019. Certified robustness to adversarial examples with differential privacy. Proc IEEE Symp on Security and Privacy, p.656-672.

[19]Leino K, Wang ZF, Fredrikson M, 2021. Globally-robust neural networks. Proc 38^th Int Conf on Machine Learning, p.6212-6222.

[20]Li JL, Liu JC, Yang PF, et al., 2019. Analyzing deep neural networks with symbolic propagation: towards higher precision and faster verification. Proc 26^th Int Static Analysis Symp, p.296-319.

[21]Liang Z, Liu WW, Wu TR, et al., 2023. Advances and prospects of training methods for robust neural networks. Sci Technol Fores, 2(1):78-89 (in Chinese).

[22]Liu JX, Xing YH, Shi XM, et al., 2022. Abstraction and refinement: towards scalable and exact verification of neural networks. https://arxiv.org/abs/2207.00759

[23]Liu WW, Song F, Zhang THR, et al., 2020. Verifying ReLU neural networks from a model checking perspective. J Comput Sci Technol, 35(6):1365-1381.

[24]Ma L, Juefei-Xu F, Zhang FY, et al., 2018. DeepGauge: multi-granularity testing criteria for deep learning systems. Proc 33^rd ACM/IEEE Int Conf on Automated Software Engineering, p.120-131.

[25]Madry A, Makelov A, Schmidt L, et al., 2018. Towards deep learning models resistant to adversarial attacks. Proc 6^th Int Conf on Learning Representations.

[26]Mirman M, Gehr T, Vechev MT, 2018. Differentiable abstract interpretation for provably robust neural networks. Proc 35^th Int Conf on Machine Learning, p.3575-3583.

[27]Murphy KP, 2012. Machine Learning: a Probabilistic Perspective. MIT Press, Cambridge, USA.

[28]Ryou W, Chen JY, Balunovic M, et al., 2021. Scalable polyhedral verification of recurrent neural networks. Proc 33^rd Int Conf on Computer Aided Verification, p.225-248.

[29]Salman H, Yang G, Zhang H, et al., 2019. A convex relaxation barrier to tight robust verification of neural networks. Proc 33^rd Int Conf on Neural Information Processing Systems, Article 882.

[30]Singh G, Gehr T, Mirman M, et al., 2018. Fast and effective robustness certification. Proc 32^nd Int Conf on Neural Information Processing Systems, p.10825-10836.

[31]Singh G, Gehr T, Püschel M, et al., 2019. An abstract domain for certifying neural networks. Proc ACM on Programming Languages, p.1-30.

[32]Sun B, Sun J, Dai T, et al., 2021. Probabilistic verification of neural networks against group fairness. Proc 24^th Int Symp on Formal Methods, p.83-102.

[33]Tian Y, Yang WJ, Wang J, 2021. Image fusion using a multi-level image decomposition and fusion method. Appl Opt, 60(24):7466-7479.

[34]Tjeng V, Xiao KY, Tedrake R, 2019. Evaluating robustness of neural networks with mixed integer programming. Proc 7^th Int Conf on Learning Representations.

[35]Tran HD, Manzanas Lopez D, Musau P, et al., 2019. Star-based reachability analysis of deep neural networks. Proc 3^rd Int Symp on Formal Methods, p.670-686.

[36]Wang SQ, Pei KX, Whitehouse J, et al., 2018a. Efficient formal safety analysis of neural networks. Proc 32^nd Int Conf on Neural Information Processing Systems, p.6369-6379.

[37]Wang SQ, Chen YZ, Abdou A, et al., 2018b. MixTrain: scalable training of formally robust neural networks. https://arxiv.org/abs/1811.02625

[38]Weng TW, Zhang H, Chen PY, et al., 2018a. Evaluating the robustness of neural networks: an extreme value theory approach. Proc 6^th Int Conf on Learning Representations.

[39]Weng TW, Zhang H, Chen HG, et al., 2018b. Towards fast computation of certified robustness for ReLU networks. Proc 35^th Int Conf on Machine Learning, p.5273-5282.

[40]Wong E, Schmidt FR, Metzen JH, et al., 2018. Scaling provable adversarial defenses. Proc 32^nd Int Conf on Neural Information Processing Systems, p.8410-8419.

[41]Xiao KY, Tjeng V, Shafiullah NM, et al., 2019. Training for faster adversarial robustness verification via inducing ReLU stability. Proc 7^th Int Conf on Learning Representations.

[42]Zhang H, Weng TW, Chen PY, et al., 2018. Efficient neural network robustness certification with general activation functions. Proc 32^nd Int Conf on Neural Information Processing Systems, p.4944-4953.

[43]Zhang H, Chen HG, Xiao CW, et al., 2020. Towards stable and efficient training of verifiably robust neural networks. Proc 8^th Int Conf on Learning Representations.

[44]Zhang YD, Zhao Z, Chen GK, et al., 2022. QVIP: an ILP-based formal verification approach for quantized neural networks. Proc 37^th IEEE/ACM Int Conf on Automated Software Engineering, p.82:1-82:13.

[45]Zhao Z, Zhang YD, Chen GK, et al., 2022. CLEVEREST: accelerating CEGAR-based neural network verification via adversarial attacks. Proc 29^th Int Static Analysis Symp, p.449-473.