Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40003160›Full record

ArticleEntropy (Basel, Switzerland)2025

PRG4CNN: A Probabilistic Model Checking-Driven Robustness Guarantee Framework for CNNs.

Yang Liu, Aohui Fang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Entropy (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Yang LiuInstitute of Logistics Science and Engineering, Shanghai Maritime University, Shanghai 200120, China.
Aohui FangInstitute of Logistics Science and Engineering, Shanghai Maritime University, Shanghai 200120, China.

Funding

National Social Science Fund of China 24BGL111
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

As an important kind of DNN (deep neural network), CNN (convolutional neural network) has made remarkable progress and been widely used in the vision and decision-making of autonomous robots. Nonetheless, in many scenarios, even a minor perturbation in input for CNNs may lead to serious errors, which means CNNs lack robustness. Formal verification is an effective method to guarantee the robustness of CNNs. Existing works predominantly concentrate on local robustness verification, which requires considerable time and space. Probabilistic robustness quantifies the robustness of CNNs, which is a practical mode of potential measurement. The state-of-the-art of probabilistic robustness verification is a test-driven approach, which is used to manually decide whether a DNN satisfies the probabilistic robustness and does not involve robustness repair. Robustness repair can improve the robustness of CNNs further. To address this issue, we propose a probabilistic model checking-driven robustness guarantee framework for CNNs, i.e., PRG4CNN. This is the first automated and complete framework for guaranteeing the probabilistic robustness of CNNs. It comprises four steps, as follows: (1) modeling a CNN as an MDP (Markov decision processes) by model learning, (2) specifying the probabilistic robustness of the CNN via the PCTL (Probabilistic Computational Tree Logic) formula, (3) verifying the probabilistic robustness with a probabilistic model checker, and (4) probabilistic robustness repair by counterexample-guided sensitivity analysis, if probabilistic robustness does not hold on the CNN. We here conduct experiments on various scales of CNNs trained on the handwriting dataset MNIST, and demonstrate the effectiveness of PRG4CNN.

Indexed as

CNNprobabilistic model checkingprobabilistic robustness

Identifiers

PMID40003160
PMCPMC11854547

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.