Paper detail

Can pruning improve certified robustness of neural networks?

With the rapid development of deep learning, the sizes of neural networks become larger and larger so that the training and inference often overwhelm the hardware resources. Given the fact that neural networks are often over-parameterized, one effective way to reduce such computational overhead is neural network pruning, by removing redundant parameters from trained neural networks. It has been recently observed that pruning can not only reduce computational overhead but also can improve empirical robustness of deep neural networks (NNs), potentially owing to removing spurious correlations while preserving the predictive accuracies. This paper for the first time demonstrates that pruning can generally improve certified robustness for ReLU-based NNs under the complete verification setting. Using the popular Branch-and-Bound (BaB) framework, we find that pruning can enhance the estimated bound tightness of certified robustness verification, by alleviating linear relaxation and sub-domain split problems. We empirically verify our findings with off-the-shelf pruning methods and further present a new stability-based pruning method tailored for reducing neuron instability, that outperforms existing pruning methods in enhancing certified robustness. Our experiments show that by appropriately pruning an NN, its certified accuracy can be boosted up to 8.2% under standard training, and up to 24.5% under adversarial training on the CIFAR10 dataset. We additionally observe the existence of certified lottery tickets that can match both standard and certified robust accuracies of the original dense models across different datasets. Our findings offer a new angle to study the intriguing interaction between sparsity and robustness, i.e. interpreting the interaction of sparsity and certified robustness via neuron stability. Codes are available at: https://github.com/VITA-Group/CertifiedPruning.

preprint2022arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.