Towards Reliable Neural Specifications
Chuqin Geng, Nham Le, Xiaojie Xu, Zhaoyue Wang, Arie Gurfinkel, Xujie Si
Abstract
Having reliable specifications is an unavoidable challenge in achieving verifiable correctness, robustness, and interpretability of AI systems. Existing specifications for neural networks are in the paradigm of data as specification. That is, the local neighborhood centering around a reference input is considered to be correct (or robust). While existing specifications contribute to verifying adversarial robustness, a significant problem in many research domains, our empirical study shows that those verified regions are somewhat tight, and thus fail to allow verification of test set inputs, making them impractical for some real-world applications. To this end, we propose a new family of specifications called neural representation as specification, which uses the intrinsic information of neural networks - neural activation patterns (NAPs), rather than input data to specify the correctness and/or robustness of neural network predictions. We present a simple statistical approach to mining neural activation patterns. To show the effectiveness of discovered NAPs, we formally verify several important properties, such as various types of misclassifications will never happen for a given NAP, and there is no ambiguity between different NAPs. We show that by using NAP, we can verify a significant region of the input space, while still recalling 84% of the data on MNIST. Moreover, we can push the verifiable bound to 10 times larger on the CIFAR10 benchmark. Thus, we argue that NAPs can potentially be used as a more reliable and extensible specification for neural network verification.
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Your agent calls
Luneget_paper_fulltext
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers fulltext 85d922d8-e612-425b-a483-a64698cec3d7Cited by top-tier papers5
- Formal Mechanistic Interpretability: Automated Circuit Discovery with Provable GuaranteesItamar Hadad, Guy Katz, Shahaf BassanICLR 2026 · 10 citations
- Input-Relational Verification of Deep Neural NetworksDebangshu Banerjee, Changming Xu, Gagandeep SinghPLDI 2024 · 9 citations
- Automated Verification of Soundness of DNN CertifiersAvaljot Singh, Yasmin Sarita, Charith Mendis, Gagandeep SinghOOPSLA 2025 · 3 citations
- Certifying Counterfactual Bias in LLMsIsha Chaudhary, Qian Hu, Manoj Kumar, Morteza Ziyadi et al.ICLR 2025 · 3 citations
- Mining Verdict Boundaries for Neural Network VerificationJiawei Ren, Guanqin Zhang, Zhenya Zhang, Yulei SuiFM 2026
Builds on1
Related papers
- Verifying Structural Robustness of Deep Neural NetworkHai Duong, Thanh Tien Le, Lam Nguyen, ThanhVu NguyenFSE 2026
- Training Verification-Friendly Neural Networks via Neuron Behavior ConsistencyZongxin Liu, Zhe Zhao, Fu Song, Jun Sun et al.AAAI 2025 · 1 citation
- Interpreting Robustness Proofs of Deep Neural NetworksDebangshu Banerjee, Avaljot Singh, Gagandeep SinghICLR 2024 · 6 citations
- Provably Tightest Linear Approximation for Robustness Verification of Sigmoid-like Neural NetworksZhaodi Zhang, Yiting Wu, Si Liu, Jing Liu et al.ASE 2022 · 11 citations
- Detection of Out-of-Distribution Samples Using Binary Neuron Activation PatternsBartlomiej Olber, Krystian Radlak, Adam Popowicz, Michal Szczepankiewicz et al.CVPR 2023
