VeriFlow: Modeling Distributions for Neural Network Verification
Faried Abu Zaid, Daniel Neider, Mustafa Yal\c{c}{\i}ner

TL;DR
VeriFlow introduces a flow-based density model that restricts neural network verification to relevant data distributions, improving the meaningfulness and efficiency of safety and fairness assessments.
Contribution
The paper presents VeriFlow, a novel flow-based density model enabling verification within specific data distributions using linear constraints, enhancing verification relevance and interpretability.
Findings
Model is piecewise affine, facilitating linear arithmetic verification.
Upper density level sets are definable via linear constraints.
Enables probabilistic control over input typicality during verification.
Abstract
Formal verification has emerged as a promising method to ensure the safety and reliability of neural networks. However, many relevant properties, such as fairness or global robustness, pertain to the entire input space. If one applies verification techniques naively, the neural network is checked even on inputs that do not occur in the real world and have no meaning. To tackle this shortcoming, we propose the VeriFlow architecture as a flow-based density model tailored to allow any verification approach to restrict its search to some data distribution of interest. We argue that our architecture is particularly well suited for this purpose because of two major properties. First, we show that the transformation that is defined by our model is piecewise affine. Therefore, the model allows the usage of verifiers based on constraint solving with linear arithmetic. Second, upper density level…
Peer Reviews
Decision·Submitted to ICLR 2025
- This paper proposes a generic neuro-symbolic approach to limit the input space to a given data distribution. The specification considered here is novel and of practical interest. - The paper designs a novel flow model that allows the definition of the pre-image of a density level set in the latent space via linear constraints, making the model both interpretable and compatible with existing neural network verifiers. - The paper instantiates the proposed verification method with two verifiers,
- The paper only considers relatively small datasets. Validating the approach on common benchmark sets considered in VNN literature such as CIFAR-10 and ACAS-Xu would better illustrate the scalability of the approach. - The soundness of the verification depends on the quality of the trained flow model. This is an intrinsic issue of neuro-symbolic approaches like this, but I do acknowledge that I cannot see an alternative approach to verify the specifications considered in the paper.
**Strengths** - In theory, I think coming up with sensible specifications for Neural Networks is an important problem. Unfortunately, there does not seem to be enough work in this direction. - Using normalizing flows seems to be a reasonable choice for encoding input specification.
**Questions and weaknesses** I had a really hard time understanding the paper. The organization and notations and definition used in the paper are not mentioned beforehand. **Motivation of the work**\ Q1. (Lines 52 - 53) “Local properties, on the other hand, suffer from the same problem as statistical testing, i.e., they rely on a high-quality data set that the verification property is based on.” - I completely agree with this statement. However, even networks trained with certifiably robust m
1. A novel perspective to neural network verification. Most of the existing approaches try to define tightest-possible over-approximation for DNNs to be verified to reduce over-estimation and false positives in formal verification results. This paper considers the verification from a new perspective by restricting verification approaches to meaningful input space. In literature, there are several attempts to the formal verifications of semantic perturbations such as rotations, occlusions, and ge
1. The presentation shall be carefully proofread if the paper is finally accepted. There are a lot of grammatical errors that could be completely avoided. For instance, on Line 212, the sentence let XXX is the hyper volume, and on Line 480 complext problems should be complex problems. I just name a few of them. The paper seems to be written in haste. That makes me lower my score. 2. The experiment part should provide more evidences about meaningful counterexamples generated by the proposed app
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsAdversarial Robustness in Machine Learning · Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
