MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403331479 · doi:10.1109/lcsys.2024.3478272

Computation and Formal Verification of Neural Network Contraction Metrics

2024· article· en· W4403331479 on OpenAlexafffund
Maxwell Fitzsimmons, Jun Liu

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Control Systems Letters · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNeural Networks and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsComputer scienceComputationArtificial neural networkFormal verificationContraction (grammar)Programming languageArtificial intelligenceTheoretical computer scienceMedicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A contraction metric defines a differential Lyapunov-like function that robustly captures the convergence between trajectories. In this letter, we investigate the use of neural networks for computing verifiable contraction metrics. We first prove the existence of a smooth neural network contraction metric within the domain of attraction of an exponentially stable equilibrium point. We then focus on the computation of a neural network contraction metric over a compact invariant set within the domain of attraction certified by a physics-informed neural network Lyapunov function. We consider both partial differential inequality (PDI) and equation (PDE) losses for computation. We show that sufficiently accurate neural approximate solutions to the PDI and PDE are guaranteed to be a contraction metric under mild technical assumptions. We rigorously verify the computed neural network contraction metric using a satisfiability modulo theories solver. Through numerical examples, we demonstrate that the proposed approach outperforms traditional semidefinite programming methods for finding sum-of-squares polynomial contraction metrics.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.222 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Control Systems LettersSame topicNeural Networks and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207