Cited by 115Adversarial Robustness in Machine LearningFormal Methods in VerificationSoftware Testing and Debugging Techniques

Towards Proving the Adversarial Robustness of Deep Neural Networks

Open access
Katz, Guy, Barrett, Clark, Dill, David L., Julian, Kyle, Kochenderfer, Mykel J.·2017·Electronic Proceedings in Theoretical Computer Science

Abstract

Autonomous vehicles are highly complex systems, required to function reliably in a wide variety of situations. Manually crafting software controllers for these vehicles is difficult, but there has been some success in using deep neural networks generated using machine-learning. However, deep neural networks are opaque to human engineers, rendering their correctness very difficult to prove manually; and existing automated techniques, which were not designed to operate on neural networks, fail to scale to large systems. This paper focuses on proving the adversarial robustness of deep neural networks, i.e. proving that small perturbations to a correctly-classified input to the network cannot cause it to be misclassified. We describe some of our recent and ongoing work on verifying the adversarial robustness of networks, and discuss some of the open questions we have encountered and how they might be addressed.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.4204/eptcs.257.3

Cites

17 of 17 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Contemporary authors continue to find value in existing data quality characterisations and conceptual structures.

    “contemporary authors continue to find value in existing data quality characterisations and conceptual structures.”
  • Long lists of requirements have been found to deter practitioners from applying traditional standards.

    “Long lists of requirements have been found to deter practitioners from applying traditional standards, with Kim et al. [41] showing that there is value in simplified frameworks that are tailored to a specific use case or technology.”
  • There is value in simplified frameworks that are tailored to a specific use case or technology.

    “there is value in simplified frameworks that are tailored to a specific use case or technology.”
  • Kim et al. developed new frameworks for assessing and improving maturity of IoT data quality processes based on ISO 8000-61 and ISO 8000-62.

    “Kim et al. [41], who developed new frameworks for assessing and improving the maturity of IoT data quality processes based on the standards ISO 8000-61 and ISO 8000-62.”
  • There is value in simplified data quality frameworks that are tailored to specific use cases or technologies.

    “It was also found that there is value in simplified data quality frameworks that are tailored to specific use cases or technologies [41].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Katz, G., Barrett, C., Dill, D. L., Julian, K., & Kochenderfer, M. J.
Affiliations
Stanford University (US)
Venue
Electronic Proceedings in Theoretical Computer Science
Published
2017-09-07
Volume
257
Pages
19-26
ISSN
2075-2180 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2754537581
Cited by
115
References
17
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 24 · 2019: 22 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 7
FWCI
10.94
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc-nd
Locations
  • Electronic Proceedings in Theoretical Computer Science (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Adversarial Robustness in Machine Learning
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computational Theory and Mathematics › Formal Methods in Verification
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Software › Software Testing and Debugging Techniques
Keywords
adversarial robustness, deep neural network, formal verification, autonomous vehicles, neural network verification, adversarial perturbations, correctness proofs

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review