Artificial Neural networks (ANNs) are powerful computing systems employed for various applications due to their versatility to generalize and to respond to unexpected inputs patterns. However, implementations of ANNs for safety-critical systems might lead to failures, which are hardly predicted in the design phase since ANNs are highly parallel and their parameters are hardly interpretable. Here we develop and evaluate a novel symbolic software verification framework based on incremental bounded model checking (BMC) to check for adversarial cases and coverage methods in multi-layer perceptron (MLP). In particular, we further develop the efficient SMT-based Context-Bounded Model Checker for Graphical Processing Units (ESBMC-GPU) in order to ensure the reliability of certain safety properties in which safety-critical systems can fail and make incorrect decisions, thereby leading to unwanted material damage or even put lives in danger. This paper marks the first symbolic verification framework to reason over ANNs implemented in CUDA. Our experimental results show that our approach implemented in ESBMC-GPU can successfully verify safety properties and covering methods in ANNs and correctly generate 28 adversarial cases in MLPs.
Our ultimate goal is to formally ensure safety for applications that are based on Artificial Intelligence (AI), as described by @cite_4 . In particular, the potential impact of intelligent systems performing tasks in society and how safety guarantees are necessary to prevent damages are the main problem of safety in ANNs.
@cite_4
2462906003
Rapid progress in machine learning and artificial intelligence (AI) has brought increasing attention to the potential impacts of AI technologies on society. In this paper we discuss one such potential impact: the problem of accidents in machine learning systems, defined as unintended and harmful behavior that may emerge from poor design of real-world AI systems. We present a list of five practical research problems related to accident risk, categorized according to whether the problem originates from having the wrong objective function ("avoiding side effects" and "avoiding reward hacking"), an objective function that is too expensive to evaluate frequently ("scalable supervision"), or undesirable behavior during the learning process ("safe exploration" and "distributional shift"). We review previous work in these areas as well as suggesting research directions with a focus on relevance to cutting-edge AI systems. Finally, we consider the high-level question of how to think most productively about the safety of forward-looking applications of AI.