NLP Verification: Towards a General Methodology for Certifying Robustness

Deep neural networks have exhibited substantial success in the field of Natural Language Processing (NLP) and ensuring their safety and reliability is crucial: there are safety critical contexts where such models must be robust to variability or attack, and give guarantees over their output. Unlike Computer Vision, NLP lacks a unified verification methodology and, despite recent advancements in literature, they are often light on the pragmatical issues of NLP verification. In this paper, we make an attempt to distil and evaluate general components of an NLP verification pipeline, that emerges from the progress in the field to date. Our contributions are two-fold. Firstly, we give a general characterisation of verifiable subspaces that result from embedding sentences into continuous spaces. We identify, and give an effective method to deal with, the technical challenge of semantic generalisability of verified subspaces; and propose it as a standard metric in the NLP verification pipelines (alongside with the standard metrics of model accuracy and model verifiability). Secondly, we propose a general methodology to analyse the effect of the embedding gap, a problem that refers to the discrepancy between verification of geometric subpspaces on the one hand, and semantic meaning of sentences which the geometric subspaces are supposed to represent, on the other hand. In extreme cases, poor choices in embedding of sentences may invalidate verification results. We propose a number of practical NLP methods that can help to identify the effects of the embedding gap; and in particular we propose the metric of falsifiability of semantic subpspaces as another fundamental metric to be reported as part of the NLP verification pipeline. We believe that together these general principles pave the way towards a more consolidated and effective development of this new domain.

ANTONIO: Towards a Systematic Method of Generating NLP Benchmarks for Verification

Verification of machine learning models used in Natural Language Processing (NLP) is known to be a hard problem. In particular, many known neural network verification methods that work for computer vision and other numeric datasets do not work for NLP. Here, we study technical reasons that underlie this problem. Based on this analysis, we propose practical methods and heuristics for preparing NLP datasets and models in a way that renders them amenable to known verification methods based on abstract interpretation. We implement these methods as a Python library called ANTONIO that links to the neural network verifiers ERAN and Marabou. We perform evaluation of the tool using an NLP dataset R-U-A-Robot suggested as a benchmark for verifying legally critical NLP applications. We hope that, thanks to its general applicability, this work will open novel possibilities for including NLP verification problems into neural network verification competitions, and will popularise NLP problems within this community.

Why Robust Natural Language Understanding is a Challenge

With the proliferation of Deep Machine Learning into real-life applications, a particular property of this technology has been brought to attention: Neural Networks notoriously present low robustness and can be highly sensitive to small input perturbations. Recently, many methods for verifying networks' general properties of robustness have been proposed, but they are mostly applied in Computer Vision. In this paper we propose a Verification method for Natural Language Understanding classification based on larger regions of interest, and we discuss the challenges of such task. We observe that, although the data is almost linearly separable, the verifier does not output positive results and we explain the problems and implications.

Property-driven Training: All You (N)Ever Wanted to Know About

Neural networks are known for their ability to detect general patterns in noisy data. This makes them a popular tool for perception components in complex AI systems. Paradoxically, they are also known for being vulnerable to adversarial attacks. In response, various methods such as adversarial training, data-augmentation and Lipschitz robustness training have been proposed as means of improving their robustness. However, as this paper explores, these training methods each optimise for a different definition of robustness. We perform an in-depth comparison of these different definitions, including their relationship, assumptions, interpretability and verifiability after training. We also look at constraint-driven training, a general approach designed to encode arbitrary constraints, and show that not all of these definitions are directly encodable. Finally we perform experiments to compare the applicability and efficacy of the training methods at ensuring the network obeys these different definitions. These results highlight that even the encoding of such a simple piece of knowledge such as robustness in neural network training is fraught with difficult choices and pitfalls.