Speeding up neural network robustness verification via algorithm configuration and an optimised mixed integer linear programming solver portfolio
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Despite their great success in recent years, neural networks have been found to be vulnerable to adversarial attacks. These attacks are often based on slight perturbations of given inputs that cause them to be misclassified. Several methods have been proposed to formally prove robustness of a given network against such attacks. However, these methods typically give rise to high computational demands, which severely limit their scalability. Recent state-of-the-art approaches state the verification task as a minimisation problem, which is formulated and solved as a mixed-integer linear programming (MIP) problem. We extend this approach by leveraging automated algorithm configuration techniques and, more specifically, construct a portfolio of MIP solver configurations optimised for the neural network verification task. We test this approach on two recent, state-of-the-art MIP-based verification engines, $$\mathrm {MIPVerify}$$ MIPVerify and $$\mathrm {Venus}$$ Venus , and achieve substantial improvements in CPU time by average factors of up to 4.7 and 10.3, respectively.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".