ReachNN: Reachability Analysis of Neural-Network Controlled Systems

06/25/2019 ∙ by Chao Huang, et al. ∙ Boston University University of Dayton Northwestern University 0

Applying neural networks as controllers in dynamical systems has shown great promises. However, it is critical yet challenging to verify the safety of such control systems with neural-network controllers in the loop. Previous methods for verifying neural network controlled systems are limited to a few specific activation functions. In this work, we propose a new reachability analysis approach based on Bernstein polynomials that can verify neural-network controlled systems with a more general form of activation functions, i.e., as long as they ensure that the neural networks are Lipschitz continuous. Specifically, we consider abstracting feedforward neural networks with Bernstein polynomials for a small subset of inputs. To quantify the error introduced by abstraction, we provide both theoretical error bound estimation based on the theory of Bernstein polynomials and more practical sampling based error bound estimation, following a tight Lipschitz constant estimation approach based on forward reachability analysis. Compared with previous methods, our approach addresses a much broader set of neural networks, including heterogeneous neural networks that contain multiple types of activation functions. Experiment results on a variety of benchmarks show the effectiveness of our approach.



There are no comments yet.


page 2

page 3

page 4

page 6

page 7

page 8

page 9

page 11

This week in AI

Get the week's most popular data science and artificial intelligence research sent straight to your inbox every Saturday.

1. Introduction

Data-driven control systems, especially neural-network-based controllers (Mnih et al., 2015; Lillicrap et al., 2016; Pan et al., 2018), have recently become the subject of intense research and demonstrated great promises. Formally verifying the safety of these systems however still remains an open problem. A Neural-Network Controlled System (NNCS) is essentially a continuous system controlled by a neural network, which produces control inputs at the beginning of each control step based on the current values of the state variables and feeds them back to the continuous system. Reachability of continuous or hybrid dynamical systems with traditional controllers has been extensively studied in the last decades. It has been proven that reachability of most nonlinear systems is undecidable (Alur et al., 1995; Henzinger et al., 1998). Recent approaches mainly focus on the overapproximation of reachable sets (Dreossi et al., 2016; Lygeros et al., 1999; Frehse, 2005; Yang et al., 2016; Prajna and Jadbabaie, 2004; Huang et al., 2017a). The main difficulty impeding the direct application of these approaches to NNCS is the hardness of formally characterizing or abstracting the input-output mapping of a neural network.

Some recent approaches considered the problem of computing the output range of a neural network. Given a neural network along with a set of the inputs, these methods seek to compute an interval or a box (vector of intervals) that contains the set of corresponding outputs. These techniques are partly motivated by the study of robustness 

(Dutta et al., 2018) of neural networks to adversarial examples (Szegedy et al., 2013). Katz et al. (2017)

propose an SMT-based approach called Reluplex by extending the simplex algorithm to handle ReLU constraints.

Huang et al. (2017b) use a refinement-by-layer technique to prove the absence or show the presence of adversarial examples around the neighborhood of a specific input. General neural networks with Lipschitz continuity are then considered by Ruan et al. (2018), where the authors show that a large number of neural networks are Lipschitz continuous and the Lipschitz constant can help in estimating the output range which requires solving a global optimization problem. Dutta et al. (2018)

propose an efficient approach using mixed integer linear programming to compute the exact interval range of a neural network with only ReLU activation functions.

However, these existing methods cannot be directly used to analyze the reachability of dynamical systems controlled by neural networks. As the behavior of these systems is based on the interaction between the continuous dynamics and the neural-network controller, we need to not only compute the output range but also describe the input-output mapping for the controller. More precisely, we need to compute a tractable function model whose domain is the input set of the controller and its output range contains the set of the controller’s outputs. We call such a function model a higher-order set, to highlight the distinction from intervals which are -order sets. Computing a tractable function model from the original model can also be viewed as a form of knowledge distillation (Hinton et al., 2015) from the verification perspective, as the function model should be able to produce comparable results or replicate the outputs of the target neural network on specific inputs.

There have been some recent efforts on computing higher-order sets for the controllers in NNCS. Ivanov et al. (2018)

present a method to equivalently transform a system to a hybrid automaton by replacing a neuron in the controller with an ordinary differential equation (ODE). This method is however only applicable to differentiable neural-network controllers – ReLU neural networks are thus excluded.

Dutta et al. (2019) use a flowpipe construction scheme to compute overapproximations for reachable set segments. A piecewise polynomial model is used to provide an approximation of the input-output mapping of the controller and an error bound on the approximation. This method is however limited to neural networks with ReLU activation functions. We will discuss technical features of these related works in more detail in Section 2 when we introduce the problem formally.

Neural network controllers in practical applications could involve multiple types of activation functions (Beer et al., 1989; Lillicrap et al., 2016). The approaches discussed above for specific activation function may not be able to handle such cases, and a more general approach is thus needed.

In this paper, we propose a new reachability analysis approach for verifying NNCS with general neural-network controllers called ReachNN based on Bernstein polynomial. More specifically, given an input space and a degree bound, we construct a polynomial approximation for a general neural-network controller based on Bernstein polynomials. For the critical step of estimating the approximation error bound, inspired by the observation that most neural networks are Lipschitz continuous (Ruan et al., 2018), we present two techniques – a priori theoretical approach based on existing results on Bernstein polynomials and a posteriori approach based on adaptive sampling. By applying these two techniques together, we are able to capture the behavior of a neural-network controller during verification via Bernstein polynomial with tight error bound estimation. Based on the polynomial approximation with the bounded error, we can iteratively compute an overapproximated reachable set of the neural-network controlled system via flowpipes (Zhao, 1992). By the Stone-Weierstrass theorem (De Branges, 1959), our Bernstein polynomial based approach can approximate most neural networks with different activation functions (e.g., ReLU, sigmoid, tanh) to arbitrary precision. Furthermore, as we will illustrate later in Section 3, the approximation error bound can be conveniently calculated.

Our paper makes the following contributions.

  • We proposed a Bernstein polynomial based approach to generate high-order approximations for the input-output mapping of general neural-network controllers, which is much tighter than the interval based approaches.

  • We developed two techniques to analyze the approximation error bound for neural networks with different activation functions and structures based on the Lipschitz continuity of both the network and the approximation. One is based on the theory of Bernstein polynomials and provides a priori insight of the theoretical upper bound of the approximation error, while the other achieves a more accurate estimation in practice via adaptive sampling.

  • We demonstrated the effectiveness of our approach on multiple benchmarks, showing its capability in handling dynamical systems with various neural-network controllers, including heterogeneous neural networks with multiple types of activation functions. For homogeneous networks, compared with state-of-the-art approaches Sherlock and Verisig, our ReachNN approach can achieve comparable or even better approximation performance, albeit with longer computation time.

The rest of the paper is structured as follows. Section 2 introduces the system model, the reachability problem, and more details on the most relevant works. Section 3 presents our approach, including the construction of polynomial approximation and the estimation of error bound. Section 4 presents the experimental results. Section 5 provides further discussion of our approach and Section 6 concludes the paper.

2. Problem Statement

In this section, we describe the reachability of NNCS and a solution framework that computes overapproximations for reachable sets. In the paper, a set of ordered variables is collectively denoted by . For a vector , we denote its -th component by .

A NNCS is illustrated in the Figure 1. The plant is the formal model of a physical system or process, defined by an ODE in the form of such that are the state variables and are the control inputs. We require that the function is Lipschitz continuous in and continuous in , in order to guarantee the existence of a unique solution of the ODE from a single initial state (see (Meiss, 2007)).

The controller in our system is implemented as a feed-forward neural network, which can be defined as a function

that maps the values of to the control inputs . It consists of layers, where the first layers are referred as “hidden layers” and the -th layer represents the network’s output. Specifically, we have

where and for

are learnable parameters as linear transformations connecting two consecutive layers, which is then followed by an element-wise nonlinear activation function.

is the function mapping from the output of layer to the output layer such that is the output of layer . An illustration of a neural network is given in Fig 1.

A NNCS works in the following way. Given a control time stepsize , at the time for , the neural network takes the current state as input, computes the input values for the next time step and feeds it back to the plant. More precisely, the plant ODE becomes in the time period of for . Notice that the controller does not change the state of the system but the dynamics. The formal definition of a NNCS is given as below.

Figure 1. Neural-network controlled system (NNCS).
Definition 2.1 (Neural-Network Controlled System).

A neural-network controlled system (NNCS) can be denoted by a tuple , where denotes the state space whose dimension is the number of state variables, denotes the control input set whose dimension is the number of control inputs, defines the continuous dynamics , defines the input/output mapping of the neural-network controller, is the control stepsize, and denotes the initial state set.

Notice that a NNCS is deterministic when the continuous dynamics function is Lipschitz continuous. The behavior of a NNCS can be defined by its flowmap. The flowmap of a system , is a function that maps an initial state to the state , which is the system state at the time from the initial state . Given an initial state , the flowmap has the following properties for all : (a) is the solution of the ODE with the initial condition in the time interval ; (b) .

We call a state reachable at time on a system , , if and only if there is some such that . Then, the set of all reachable states is called the reachable set of the system.

Definition 2.2 (Reachability Problem).

The reachability problem on a NNCS is to decide whether a given state is reachable or not at time .

In the paper, we focus on the problem of computing the reachable set for a NNCS. Since NNCSs are at least as expressive as nonlinear continuous systems, the reachability problem on NNCSs is undecidable. Although there are numerous existing techniques for analyzing the reachability of linear and nonlinear hybrid systems (Frehse et al., 2011; Chen et al., 2012; Kong et al., 2015; Duggirala et al., 2015; Althoff, 2015), none of them can be directly applied to NNCS, since equivalent transformation from NNCS to a hybrid automaton is usually very costly due to the large number of locations in the resulting automaton. Even an on-the-fly transformation may lead to a large hybrid automaton in general. Hence, we compute flowpipe overapproximations (or flowpipes) for the reachable sets of NNCS.

Similar to the flowpipe construction techniques for the reachability analysis of hybrid systems, we also seek to compute overapproximations for the reachable segments of NNCS. A continuous dynamics can be handled by the existing tools such as SpaceEx (Frehse et al., 2011) when it is linear, and Flow* (Chen et al., 2013) or CORA (Althoff, 2015) when it is nonlinear. The challenge here is to compute an accurate overapproximation for input/output mapping of the neural-network controller in each control step, and we will do it in the following way.

Given a bounded input interval , we compute a model where such that for any , the control input belongs the set . is a function of , and denotes the box in each dimension. We provide a summary of the existing works which are close to ours.

Interval overapproximation. The methods described in (Ruan et al., 2018; Xiang and Johnson, 2018) compute intervals as neural-network input/output relation and directly feed these intervals in the reachability analysis. Although they can be applied to more general neural-network controllers, using interval overapproximation in the reachability analysis cannot capture the dependencies of state variables for each control step, and it is reported in (Dutta et al., 2018).

Exact neural network model. The approach presented in (Ivanov et al., 2018) equivalently transforms the neural-network controller to a hybrid system, then the whole NNCS becomes a hybrid system and the existing analysis methods can be applied. The main limitations of the approach are: (a) the transformation could generate a model whose size is prohibitively large, and (b) it only works on neural networks with sigmoid and tanh activation functions.

Polynomial approximation with error bound. In (Dutta et al., 2019), the authors describe a method to produce higher-order sets for neural-network outputs. It is the closest work to ours. In their paper, the approximation model is a piecewise polynomial over the state variables, and the error bound can be well limited when the degrees or pieces of the polynomials are sufficiently high. The main limitation of the method is that it only applies to the neural networks with ReLU activation functions.

3. Our Approach

Our approach exploits high-order set approximation of the output of general types neural network in NNCS reachability analysis via Bernstein polynomials and approximation error bound estimation. The reachable set of NNCS is overapproximated by a finite set of Taylor model flowpipes in our method. The main framework of flowpipe construction is presented in Algorithm 1. Given a NNCS and a bounded time horizon , the algorithm computes flowpipes, each of which is an overapproximation of the reachable set in a small time interval, and the union of the flowpipes is an overapproximation of the reachable set in the time interval of . As stated in Theorem 3.1, this fact is guaranteed by (a) the flowpipes are reachable set overapproximations for the continuous dynamics in each iteration, and (b) the set is an overapproximation of the neural-network controller output. Notice that this framework is also used in (Dutta et al., 2019). However, we present a technique to compute for more general neural networks.

Data: NNCS , time horizon
Result: Flowpipes
1 Flowpipes ;
2 for  to  do
3       Compute a set which contains the value of for all ;
4       Compute the flowpipes for the continuous dynamics with and ;
5       Evaluate the flowpipe based on for the reachable set at ;
6       Flowpipes Flowpipes ;
8 end for
9return Flowpipes;
Algorithm 1 Flowpipe construction for NNCS

Let us briefly revisit the technique of computing Taylor model flowpipes for continuous dynamics.

Taylor model. Taylor models are introduced to provide higher-order enclosures for the solutions of nonlinear ODEs (see (Berz and Makino, 1998)), and then extended to overapproximate reachable sets for hybrid systems (Chen et al., 2012) and solve optimization problems (Makino and Berz, 2005). A Taylor Model (TM) is denoted by a pair where is a (vector-valued) polynomial over a set of variables and is an (vector-valued) interval. A continuous function can be overapproximated by a TM over a domain in the way that for all . When the approximation is close to , can be made very small.

TM flowpipe construction. The technique of TM flowpipe construction is introduced to compute overapproximations for the reachable set segments of continuous dynamics. Given an ODE , an initial set and a time horizon , the method computes a finite set of TMs such that for each , the flowpipe contains the reachable set in the time interval of , and , i.e., the union of the flowpipes is an overapproximation of the reachable set in the given time horizon. The standard TM flowpipe construction is described in (Berz and Makino, 1998), and it is adapted in (Chen, 2015; Chen and Sankaranarayanan, 2016) for better handling the dynamical systems.

The main contribution of our paper is a novel approach to compute a higher-order overapproximation for the output set of neural networks with a more general form of activation functions, including such as ReLU, sigmoid, and tanh. We show that this approach can generate accurate reachable set overapproximations for NNCSs, in combination with the TM flowpipe construction framework. Our main idea can be described as follows.

Given a neural-network controller with a single output, we assume that its input/output mapping is defined by a function and its input interval is defined by a set . In the -th (control) step, we seek to compute a TM such that


Hence, the TM is an overapproximation of the neural network output. In the paper, we compute as a Bernstein polynomial with bounded degrees. Since is a continuous function that can be approximated by a Bernstein polynomial to arbitrary precision, according to the Stone-Weierstrass theorem (De Branges, 1959), we can always ensure that such exists.

In our reachability computation, the set is given by a TM flowpipe. To obtain a TM for the neural network output set, we use TM arithmetic to evaluate a TM for with . Then, the polynomial part of the resulting TM can be viewed as an approximation of the mapping from the initial set to the neural network output, and the remainder contains the error. Such representation can partially keep the variable dependencies and much better limit the overestimation accumulation than the methods that purely use interval arithmetic.

Theorem 3.1 ().

The union of the flowpipes computed by Algorithm 1 is an overapproximation of the reachable set of the system in the time horizon of , if the flowpipes are overapproximations of the ODE solutions and the TM in every step satisfies (1).

Remark 1 ().

In our framework, Taylor models can also be considered as a candidate of high-order approximation for a neural network’s input-output mapping. However, comparing with Bernstein polynomial based approach adopted in this paper, Taylor models suffer from two main limitations: (1) The validity of Taylor models relies on the function differentiability, while ReLU neural networks are not differentiable. Thus Taylor models cannot handle a large number of neural networks; (2) There is no theoretical upper bound estimation for Taylor models, which further limits the rationality of using Taylor models.

3.1. Bernstein Polynomials for Approximation

Definition 3.2 (Bernstein Polynomials).

Let and be a function of over . The polynomials

are called the Bernstein polynomials of under the degree .

We then construct over by a series of linear transformation based on Bernstein polynomials. Assume that . Let , where



It is easy to see that is defined over . For , let be the Bernstein polynomials of . We construct the polynomial approximation for as:


When we want to compute a Bernstein polynomial over a non-interval domain , we may consider an interval enclosure of , since we only need to ensure that the polynomial is valid on the domain and it is sufficient to take its superset. Hence, in Algorithm 1, the Bernstein polynomial(s) in are computed based on an interval enclosure of .

3.2. Approximation Error Estimation

After we obtain the approximation of the neural network controller, a certain question is how to estimate a valid bound for approximation error such that Theorem 3.1 holds. Namely, from any given initial state set , the reachable set of the perturbed system , at any time is a superset of the one of the NNCS with ODE . A sufficient condition can be derived based on the theory of differential inclusive (Smirnov, 2002):

Lemma 3.3 ().

Given any state set , let be the polynomial approximation of with respect to the degree defined as Equation (3). For any time , the reachable set of the perturbed system , is a superset of the one of the NNCS with ODE from , if


Intuitively, the approximation error interval has a significant impact on the reachable set overapproximation, namely a tighter can lead to a more accurate reachable set estimation. In this section, we will introduce two approaches to estimate , namely theoretical error estimation and sampling-based error estimation. The former gives us a priori insight of how precise the approximation is, while the latter one helps us to obtain a much tighter error estimation in practice.

Compute a Lipschitz constant. We start from computing the Lipschitz constant of a neural network, since Lipschize constant plays a key role in both of our two approaches, which we will see later.

Definition 3.4 ().

A real-valued function is called Lipschitz continuous over , if there exists a non-negative real , such that for any :

Any such is called a Lipschitz constant of over .

Recent work has shown that a large number of neural networks are Lipschitz continuous, such as the fully-connected neural networks with ReLU, sigmoid, and tanh activation functions and the estimation of Lipschitz constant upper bound for a neural network has been preliminary discussed in (Ruan et al., 2018; Szegedy et al., 2013).

Lemma 3.5 (Lipschitz constant for sigmoid/tanh/ReLU (Ruan et al., 2018; Szegedy et al., 2013)).

Convolutional or fully connected layers with the sigmoid activation function , hyperbolic tangent (tanh) activation function , and ReLU activation function have , , as their Lipschitz constants, respectively.

Based on Lemma 3.5, we further improve the Lipschitz constant upper bound estimation. Specifically, we consider a layer of neural network with neurons shown in Figure 2, where and denote the weight and the bias that are applied on the output of the previous layer. Input Interval and Output Interval denote the variable space before and after applied by the activation functions of this layer, respectively. Assume be the Input Interval.

We first discuss layers with sigmoid/tanh activation functions based on the following conclusion:

Lemma 3.6 ().

(Royden, 1968) Given a function , if over , then is Lipschitz continuous and is a Lipschitz constant.

Sigmoid. For a layer with sigmoid activation function with and , we have


Hyperbolic tangent. For a layer with hyperbolic tangent activation function with and , we have


For ReLU networks, we try to derive a Lipschitz constant directly based on its definition:

ReLU. For a layer with ReLU activation function with and , we have

Figure 2. Schematic diagram of Input Interval and Output Interval of a layer.
Data: Neural network , input space
Result: Lipschitz constant
1 the number of layers of ;
2 ;
3 ;
4 for  to  do
5       the activation function of the -th layer;
6       ComputeInputInterval();
7       ComputeLipchitzConstant(, , );
8       ;
9       ComputeOutputInterval();
11 end for
12return ;
Algorithm 2 Compute a Lipschitz constant for

In Algorithm 2, we first do the initialization (line 1-3) by letting the variable denoting Lipschitz constant . Note that ) denotes the input interval and output interval of layer , as shown in Figure 2. For convenience, we let be the input space . Then we do the layer-by-layer interval analysis and compute the corresponding Lipschitz constant (line 4-10). For each layer , the function ComputeInputInterval is first invoked to compute the (line 6). Then the Lipschitz constant of layer is evaluated by the function ComputeLipchitzConstant, namely Equation (5), (6), (7) in terms of the activation function of this layer (line 7). is updated to the current layer by multiplying (line 8). Finally, is computed by the function ComputeOutputInterval (line 9). Note that the implementation of ComputeInputInterval and ComputeOutputInterval is a typical interval analysis problem of neural networks, which have been adequately studied in (Dutta et al., 2018; Xiang and Johnson, 2018; Ruan et al., 2018). We do not go into details here due to the space limit.

Naive theoretical error (T-error) estimation. After obtaining a Lipschize constant of , we can directly leverage the existing result on Bernstein polynomials for Lipschitz continuous functions to derive the error of our polynomial approximation.

Lemma 3.7 ().

(Lorentz, 2013) Assume is a Lipschitz continuous function of over with a Lipschitz constant . Let and be the Bernstein polynomials of under the degree . Then we have

Theorem 3.8 (T-Error Estimation).

Assume is a Lipschitz continuous function of over with a Lipschitz constant . Let be the polynomial approximation of that is defined as Equation (3) with the degree . Let


then satisfies (4), namely,


First, by Equation (2) we know that

is a Lipschitz constant of the function . Note that , then we can obtain the Lipschitz constant of by

By Equation (8), , we have:

Adaptive sampling-based error (S-error) estimation. While Theorem 3.8 can help derive an approximation error bound easily, such bounds are often over-conservative in practice. Thus we propose an alternative sampling-based approach to estimate the approximation error. For a given box , we perform a grid-based partition based on an integer vector . That is, we partition into a set of boxes , where is the abbreviation for , and for any ,

It is easy to see that the largest error bound of all the boxes is a valid error bound over .

Lemma 3.9 ().

Assume is a continuous function of over . Let be the polynomial approximation of that is defined as Equation (3) with the degree . Let be the box partition of in terms of , and be the approximation error bound of over the box . We then have ,

Leveraging the Lipschitz continuity of , we can estimate the local error bound for box by sampling the value of and at the box center.

Lemma 3.10 ().

Assume is a Lipschitz continuous function of over box with a Lipschitz constant . Let be the polynomial approximation of that is defined as Equation (3) with the degree . Let


be the center of . For , we have


By (Brown et al., 1987), we know the Bernstein-based approximation is also Lipschitz continuous with the Lipschitz constant . Then for , we have

Combining Lemma 3.9 and Lemma 3.10, we can derive the sampling-based error bound over .

Theorem 3.11 (S-Error Estimation).

Assume is a Lipschitz continuous function of over with a Lipschitz constant . Let be the polynomial approximation of that is defined as Equation (3) with the degree , and be the sampling set with any given positive integer vector . Let


Then, (p) satisfies (4), namely,

Theorem 3.12 (Convergence of ).

Assume is a Lipschitz continuous function of over with a Lipschitz constant . Let be the polynomial approximation of that is defined as Equation (3) with the degree . Let be the exact error, we have


Let , we have

Since , when , the theorem holds. ∎

Note that actually specifies the difference between the exact error and S-error. Thus we call it sampling error precision.

[Adaptive sampling] By Theorem 3.12, we can always make arbitrarily small by increasing . Then the error bound is mainly determined by the sample difference over . Thus, if our polynomial approximation regresses well, we can expect to obtain a tight error bound estimation. To bound the impact of , we set a hyper parameter as its upper bound. Specifically, given a box , we can adaptively change to sample fewer times while ensuring .

Proposition 0 ().

Given a box and a positive number , let

Then we have .

In practice, we can directly use as by specifying a small , since S-error is more precise. It is worthy noting that a small may lead to a large number of sampling points and thus can be time consuming. In our implementation, we mitigate this runtime overhead by computing the sampling errors at for each in parallel.

4. Experiments

We implemented a prototype tool and used it in cooperation with Flow*. In our experiments, we first compare our approach ReachNN with the interval overapproximation approach on an example with a heterogeneous neural-network controller that has ReLU and tanh as activation functions. Then we compare our approach with Sherlock (Dutta et al., 2019) and Verisig (Ivanov et al., 2018) on multiple benchmarks collected from the related works. All our experiments were run on a desktop, with 12-core 3.60 GHz Intel Core i7 111 The experiments are not memory bounded..

4.1. Illustrating Example

Consider the following nonlinear control system (Gallestey and Hokayem, 2019):

where is computed from a heterogeneous neural-network controller that has two hidden layers, twenty neurons in each layer, and ReLU and tanh as activation functions. Given a control stepsize , we hope to verify whether the system will reach from the initial set . Since the state-of-art verification tools focus on NNCSs with single-type activation function and interval overapproximation is the only presented work that can be extended to heterogeneous neural networks, we compare our method with interval overapproximation in the illustrating example.

Figure (a)a shows the result of the reachability analysis with interval overapproximation, while ReachNN’s result is shown in Figure (b)b. Red curves denote the simulation results of the system evolution from different initial states, which are randomly sampled from the initial set. Green rectangles are the constructed flowpipes as the overapproximation of the reachable state set. The blue rectangle is the goal area. We conduct the reachability analysis from the initial set by combining our neural network approximation approach with Flow*. As shown in Figure (a)a, interval overapproximation based approach yields over-loose reachable set approximation, which makes the flowpipes grow uncontrollably and quickly exceeds the tolerance ( steps). On the contrary, ReachNN can provide a much tighter estimation for all control steps and thus successfully prove the reachability property.

Figure 3. Flowpipes computed by interval overapproximation approach and ReachNN on a NNCS with a heterogeneous neural-network controller that has ReLU and tanh activation functions.

4.2. Benchmarks

# ODE V Init Goal
1 , . 2 0.2 , ,
2 , . 2 0.2 , ,
3 , . 2 0.1 , ,
4 , , 3 0.1 , ,
5 , , 3 0.2 , , ,
6 , , 4 0.5 , , , ,
Table 1. Benchmark setting: For each example , denotes the ordinary differential equation of the example, denotes the dimension of the state variable, is the discrete control stepsize, denotes the number of control step, denotes the initial state set, denotes the goal set that we hope to verify the system will enter after steps.
# NN Controller ReachNN Sherlock(Dutta et al., 2019) Verisig
Act layers n d ifReach time d ifReach time ifReach time
1 ReLU 3 20 0.001 0.0009995 Yes(35) 3184 2 Yes(35) 41
sigmoid 3 20 0.001 Yes(35) 779 Unknown(22)
tanh 3 20 0.005 Unknown(35) Unknown(22)
ReLU+tanh 3 20 0.01 Yes(35) 589
2 ReLU 3 20 0.01 Yes(9) 128 2 Yes(9) 3
sigmoid 3 20 0.01 Yes(9) 280 Unknown(7)
tanh 3 20 0.01 Unknown(7) Unknown(7)
ReLU+tanh 3 20 0.001 Yes(9) 543
3 ReLU 3 20 0.01 Yes(60) 982 2 Yes(60) 139
sigmoid 3 20 0.005 Yes(60) 1467 Yes(60) 27
tanh 3 20 0.01 Yes(60) 1481 Yes(60) 26
ReLU+tanh 3 20 0.01 Unknown(60)
4 ReLU 3 20 0.005 Yes(5) 396 2 Yes(5) 19
sigmoid 3 20 0.01 Yes(10) 253 Yes(10) 7
tanh 3 20 0.01 Yes(10) 244 Yes(10) 7
ReLU+sigmoid 3 20