user: text: Write a concise one-sentence TLDR summary of the scientific paper content below.

Title: Towards Verified Robustness under Text Deletion Interventions

Paper content:
Neural networks are widely used in Natural Language Processing, yet despite their empirical successes, their behaviour is brittle: they are both over-sensitive to small input changes, and under-sensitive to deletions of large fractions of input text.
This paper aims to tackle under-sensitivity in the context of natural language inference by ensuring that models do not become more confident in their predictions as arbitrary subsets of words from the input text are deleted.
We develop a novel technique for formal verification of this specification for models based on the popular decomposable attention mechanism by employing the efficient yet effective interval bound propagation (IBP) approach.
Using this method we can efficiently prove, given a model, whether a particular sample is free from the under-sensitivity problem.
We compare different training methods to address under-sensitivity, and compare metrics to measure it.
In our experiments on the SNLI and MNLI datasets, we observe that IBP training leads to a significantly improved verified accuracy.
On the SNLI test set, we can verify 18.4% of samples, a substantial improvement over only 2.8% using standard training.
Natural language processing (NLP) widely relies on neural networks, a model class known to be vulnerable to adversarial input perturbations (Szegedy et al., 2013; Kurakin et al., 2016) .
Adversarial samples typically expose over-sensitivity to semantically invariant text transformations (Belinkov & Bisk, 2017; Ettinger et al., 2017) , e.g. character flips (Ebrahimi et al., 2018) or paraphrases (Ribeiro et al., 2018b; .
Feng et al. (2018) exposed another type of problematic behavior: deleting large parts of input text can cause a model's confidence to increase; Figure 1 shows an example.
That is, reduced sets of input words can suffice to trigger more confident predictions.
Such under-sensitivity is problematic: neural models can 'solve' NLP tasks without task-relevant textual comprehension skills, but instead fit spurious cues in the data that suffice to form correct predictions.
Models might then achieve strong nominal test accuracy on data of the same (biased) distribution as the training set, by exploiting predictive shortcuts that are not representative of the given NLP task at hand.
Consequently, they fail drastically when evaluated on samples without these spurious cues (Jia & Liang, 2017; Poliak et al., 2018; Gururangan et al., 2018; Niven & Kao, 2019) .
A major issue with identifying reduced inputs is the combinatorially large space of arbitrary text deletions; this can only be searched exhaustively for short sequences.
Prior work has considered heuristics like beam search (Feng et al., 2018) or bandits (Ribeiro et al., 2018a) , but these are generally not guaranteed to find the worst-case reductions.
In this work, we address the under-sensitivity issue by designing and formally verifying the undersensitivity specification that a model should not become more confident as arbitrary subsets of input words are deleted.
1 Under-sensitivity behaviour is not reflected in nominal accuracy, but one can instead use this specification to measure and evaluate the extent with which samples exhibit undersensitivity.
Instead of better, yet still imperfect search heuristics, we describe how interval bound propagation (IBP) (Gowal et al., 2018; Mirman et al., 2018 ) -a formal model verification methodcan be used to efficiently cover the full reduction space, and verify the under-sensitivity specification.
IBP can be applied at test time to arbitrary model inputs to verify whether or not they are undersensitive; but it can also be used to derive a new auxiliary training objective that leads to models verifiably adhering to this specification, and which we find generalizes to held-out test data.
While under-sensitivity has been demonstrated for several NLP tasks (Feng et al., 2018) , we chose to study the use case of natural language inference (NLI) (Dagan et al., 2006; Bowman et al., 2015) in particular as a representative task: sequences are comparatively short, datasets large, and the label complexity is small.
We investigate the verification of the popular decomposable attention model (DAM) 2 (Parikh et al., 2016) in detail.
This architecture covers many of the neural layer types of contemporary models, and we focus on a detailed description for how IBP can be leveraged to efficiently verify its behaviour.
We then experimentally compare various training methods addressing under-sensitivity:
i) standard training
ii) data augmentation
iii) adversarial training
iv) IBP-verified training and
v) entropy regularization, and evaluate their effectiveness against nominal (test) accuracy, adversarial accuracy, IBP-verified accuracy and a verification oracle.
To summarise, the main contributions of this paper are (1) Formalization of the problem of verifying an under-sensitivity specification, (2) Verification of the Decomposable Attention Model using Interval Bound Propagation, and (3) Empirical analysis of the efficacy of
(i) different evaluation methods for verifying robustness; and
(ii) different training methods for developing verifiably robust models.
Verification of a specification offers a stronger form of robustness than robustness to adversarial samples.
Adversarial accuracy, as e.g. derived from beam search, might conceptually be easier to compute, yet has no guarantees to find all or the strongest violations.
In fact, evaluating against weak adversaries under-estimates the extent of a problem and may lead to a false sense of confidence.
IBP verification can provide guarantees on the nonexistence of reduced inputs, but it is incomplete and can have false negatives.
Observations of comparatively low verification or adversarial accuracy rates-as in this workare not new, and have been found to be a general problem of datasets with high sample complexity (Schmidt et al., 2018) .
We emphasise that under-sensitivity is a very challenging problem to address; even the relatively conservative specification of non-increasing probability under deletion cannot be fulfilled for the majority of test samples under the baselines tested.
We see the verification of the attention-based DAM model as a stepping stone towards the verification of larger and more performant attention-based architectures, such as BERT.
Following the derivations here, token deletion bounds could similarly be propagated through BERT's self-attention layer.
Towards this end, however, we see two main hurdles:
i) BERT's network depth, resulting in gradually looser IBP bounds
ii) BERT's word piece tokenisation, which requires special consideration in conjunction with token-level perturbations.
We have investigated under-sensitivity to input text deletions in NLI and recast the problem as one of formally verifying a specification on model behaviour.
We have described how Interval Bound Propagation can be used in order to verify the popular Decomposable Attention Model, and have then compared several training methods in their ability to address and be verified against undersensitivity.
We observed that only a relatively small fraction of data points can be positively verified, but that IBP-training in particular is capable of improving verified accuracy.

assistant: text: Formal verification of a specification on a model's prediction undersensitivity using Interval Bound Propagation