Natalia Slusarz

Natalia Slusarz, Ekaterina Komendantskaya, Matthew L. Daggitt et al.

The rising popularity of neural networks (NNs) in recent years and their increasing prevalence in real-world applications have drawn attention to the importance of their verification. While verification is known to be computationally difficult theoretically, many techniques have been proposed for solving it in practice. It has been observed in the literature that by default neural networks rarely satisfy logical constraints that we want to verify. A good course of action is to train the given NN to satisfy said constraint prior to verifying them. This idea is sometimes referred to as continuous verification, referring to the loop between training and verification. Usually training with constraints is implemented by specifying a translation for a given formal logic language into loss functions. These loss functions are then used to train neural networks. Because for training purposes these functions need to be differentiable, these translations are called differentiable logics (DL). This raises several research questions. What kind of differentiable logics are possible? What difference does a specific choice of DL make in the context of continuous verification? What are the desirable criteria for a DL viewed from the point of view of the resulting loss function? In this extended abstract we will discuss and answer these questions.

Matthew L. Daggitt, Wen Kokke, Robert Atkey et al.

Neuro-symbolic programs, i.e. programs containing both machine learning components and traditional symbolic code, are becoming increasingly widespread. Finding a general methodology for verifying such programs is challenging due to both the number of different tools involved and the intricate interface between the ``neural'' and ``symbolic'' program components. In this paper we present a general decomposition of the neuro-symbolic verification problem into parts, and examine the problem of the embedding gap that occurs when one tries to combine proofs about the neural and symbolic components. To address this problem we then introduce Vehicle -- standing as an abbreviation for a ``verification condition language'' -- an intermediate programming language interface between machine learning frameworks, automated theorem provers, and dependently-typed formalisations of neuro-symbolic programs. Vehicle allows users to specify the properties of the neural components of neuro-symbolic programs once, and then safely compile the specification to each interface using a tailored typing and compilation procedure. We give a high-level overview of Vehicle's overall design, its interfaces and compilation & type-checking procedures, and then demonstrate its utility by formally verifying the safety of a simple autonomous car controlled by a neural network, operating in a stochastic environment with imperfect information.