Thomas Flinkow

LO
h-index28
6papers
26citations
Novelty37%
AI Score40

6 Papers

LONov 16, 2023
Comparing Differentiable Logics for Learning Systems: A Research Preview

Thomas Flinkow, Barak A. Pearlmutter, Rosemary Monahan

Extensive research on formal verification of machine learning (ML) systems indicates that learning from data alone often fails to capture underlying background knowledge. A variety of verifiers have been developed to ensure that a machine-learnt model satisfies correctness and safety properties, however, these verifiers typically assume a trained network with fixed weights. ML-enabled autonomous systems are required to not only detect incorrect predictions, but should also possess the ability to self-correct, continuously improving and adapting. A promising approach for creating ML models that inherently satisfy constraints is to encode background knowledge as logical constraints that guide the learning process via so-called differentiable logics. In this research preview, we compare and evaluate various logics from the literature in weakly-supervised contexts, presenting our findings and highlighting open problems for future work. Our experimental results are broadly consistent with results reported previously in literature; however, learning with differentiable logics introduces a new hyperparameter that is difficult to tune and has significant influence on the effectiveness of the logics.

97.3LOMay 13
Quantitative Linear Logic for Neuro-Symbolic Learning and Verification

Thomas Flinkow, Ekaterina Komendantskaya, Matteo Capucci et al.

Differentiable Logics are deployed in neuro-symbolic learning tasks as a way of embedding logical constraints in the training objective of neural networks. A differentiable logic consists of a syntax to write logical properties and a semantics to interpret them as real-valued functions to be folded in the loss function. A defining trade-off of the field is that between logical properties of the connectives, and analytic concerns for the semantics, with both aspects being relevant in applications. At one extreme we find fuzzy logics, that have well-established algebraic and proof-theoretic foundations, and at the other ad-hoc differentiable logics like Fischer's DL2, conceived for deep learning applications. However, no satisfactory foundation has emerged yet. We propose a resolution to this long-standing tension via a novel logic, Quantitative Linear Logic (QLL), with foundational ambitions. Our design is driven by naturality -- the idea that, since logical constraints are translated to losses, the semantics of the connectives should be pertinent operations used in ML practice (that is, sum and log-sum-exp) on additive quantities (like logits). We then judge the result on two aspects: logical adequacy -- that they satisfy most of the standard logical laws of Linear Logic; and empirical effectiveness -- test-time performance (as measured by adversarial attacks) is well-correlated to the actual verification of the logical constraints (as measured by off-the-shelf neural network verifiers), which makes QLL stand out among SoTA techniques.

LGDec 22, 2025
The 6th International Verification of Neural Networks Competition (VNN-COMP 2025): Summary and Results

Konstantin Kaulen, Tobias Ladner, Stanley Bak et al.

This report summarizes the 6th International Verification of Neural Networks Competition (VNN-COMP 2025), held as a part of the 8th International Symposium on AI Verification (SAIV), that was collocated with the 37th International Conference on Computer-Aided Verification (CAV). VNN-COMP is held annually to facilitate the fair and objective comparison of state-of-the-art neural network verification tools, encourage the standardization of tool interfaces, and bring together the neural network verification community. To this end, standardized formats for networks (ONNX) and specification (VNN-LIB) were defined, tools were evaluated on equal-cost hardware (using an automatic evaluation pipeline based on AWS instances), and tool parameters were chosen by the participants before the final test sets were made public. In the 2025 iteration, 8 teams participated on a diverse set of 16 regular and 9 extended benchmarks. This report summarizes the rules, benchmarks, participating tools, results, and lessons learned from this iteration of this competition.

LGMay 1, 2025Code
A General Framework for Property-Driven Machine Learning

Thomas Flinkow, Marco Casadio, Colin Kessler et al.

Neural networks have been shown to frequently fail to learn critical safety and correctness properties purely from data, highlighting the need for training methods that directly integrate logical specifications. While adversarial training can be used to improve robustness to small perturbations within $ε$-cubes, domains other than computer vision -- such as control systems and natural language processing -- may require more flexible input region specifications via generalised hyper-rectangles. Differentiable logics offer a way to encode arbitrary logical constraints as additional loss terms that guide the learning process towards satisfying these constraints. In this paper, we investigate how these two complementary approaches can be unified within a single framework for property-driven machine learning, as a step toward effective formal verification of neural networks. We show that well-known properties from the literature are subcases of this general approach, and we demonstrate its practical effectiveness on a case study involving a neural network controller for a drone system. Our framework is made publicly available at https://github.com/tflinkow/property-driven-ml.

ROMay 1, 2025
Neural Network Verification for Gliding Drone Control: A Case Study

Colin Kessler, Ekaterina Komendantskaya, Marco Casadio et al.

As machine learning is increasingly deployed in autonomous systems, verification of neural network controllers is becoming an active research domain. Existing tools and annual verification competitions suggest that soon this technology will become effective for real-world applications. Our application comes from the emerging field of microflyers that are passively transported by the wind, which may have various uses in weather or pollution monitoring. Specifically, we investigate centimetre-scale bio-inspired gliding drones that resemble Alsomitra macrocarpa diaspores. In this paper, we propose a new case study on verifying Alsomitra-inspired drones with neural network controllers, with the aim of adhering closely to a target trajectory. We show that our system differs substantially from existing VNN and ARCH competition benchmarks, and show that a combination of tools holds promise for verifying such systems in the future, if certain shortcomings can be overcome. We propose a novel method for robust training of regression networks, and investigate formalisations of this case study in Vehicle and CORA. Our verification results suggest that the investigated training methods do improve performance and robustness of neural network controllers in this application, but are limited in scope and usefulness. This is due to systematic limitations of both Vehicle and CORA, and the complexity of our system reducing the scale of reachability, which we investigate in detail. If these limitations can be overcome, it will enable engineers to develop safe and robust technologies that improve people's lives and reduce our impact on the environment.

LONov 21, 2024
Creating a Formally Verified Neural Network for Autonomous Navigation: An Experience Report

Syed Ali Asadullah Bukhari, Thomas Flinkow, Medet Inkarbekov et al.

The increased reliance of self-driving vehicles on neural networks opens up the challenge of their verification. In this paper we present an experience report, describing a case study which we undertook to explore the design and training of a neural network on a custom dataset for vision-based autonomous navigation. We are particularly interested in the use of machine learning with differentiable logics to obtain networks satisfying basic safety properties by design, guaranteeing the behaviour of the neural network after training. We motivate the choice of a suitable neural network verifier for our purposes and report our observations on the use of neural network verifiers for self-driving systems.