The synthesis of inductive loop invariants is a critical bottleneck in automated program verification. While Large Language Models (LLMs) show promise in mitigating this issue, they often fail on hard instances, generating invariants that are invalid or computationally ineffective. While fine-tuning is a natural route to mitigate this limitation, obtaining high-quality training data for invariant generation remains an open challenge. We present a rigorous data curation pipeline designed to extract high-quality training signals from raw verifier-generated invariants. First, we formalize the properties required for a high-quality training invariant. Second, we propose \textsc{Wonda}, a pipeline that refines noisy data via AST-based normalization, followed by LLM-driven semantic rewriting and augmentation with provable quality guarantees. We demonstrate that fine-tuning Small Language Models (SLMs) on this curated dataset result in consistent and significant performance gain. In particular, a fine-tuned 4B parameter model matches the utility of a GPT-OSS-120B baseline and approaches the state-of-the-art GPT-5.2, without incurring reasoning-time overhead. On challenging instances from the recent InvBench evaluation suite, our approach doubles the invariant correctness rate of base models; and improves their Virtual Best Performance (VBP) rates on the verification task by up to 14.2\%.

Modern neural network verifiers often encode neural network verification as constraint satisfaction problems. When dealing with standard piecewise-linear activation functions, such as ReLUs, verifiers typically employ branching heuristics that break a complex constraint satisfaction problem into multiple, simpler problems. The verifier’s performance depends heavily on the order in which this branching is performed: a poor selection may give rise to exponentially many sub-problems, hampering scalability. Here, we focus on the setting in which many related verification queries must be solved for the same neural network. The core idea is to use past experience to make good branching decisions, expediting verification. We present a reinforcement-learning-based branching heuristic that achieves this, by applying Deep Q-learning from Demonstrations (DQfD). Our experimental evaluation demonstrates a substantial reduction in average verification time and in the average number of iterations required, compared to modern splitting heuristics. These results highlight the great potential of reinforcement learning in the context of neural network verification.

Neural network verification tools currently support only a narrow class of specifications, typically expressed as low-level constraints over raw inputs and outputs. This limitation significantly hinders their adoption and practical applicability across diverse application domains where correctness requirements are naturally expressed at a higher semantic level. This challenge is rooted in the inherent nature of deep neural networks, which learn internal representations that lack an explicit mapping to human-understandable features. To address this, we bridge this gap by introducing a novel component to the verification pipeline, making existing verification tools applicable to a broader range of domains and specification styles. Our framework enables users to formulate specifications in natural language, which are then automatically analyzed and translated into formal verification queries compatible with state-of-the-art neural network verifiers. We evaluate our approach on both structured and unstructured datasets, demonstrating that it successfully verifies complex semantic specifications that were previously inaccessible. Our results show that this translation process maintains high fidelity to user intent while incurring low computational overhead, thereby substantially extending the applicability of formal DNN verification to real-world, high-level requirements.

We propose $\textbf{FAME}$ (Formal Abstract Minimal Explanations), a new class of abductive explanations grounded in abstract interpretation. FAME is the first method to scale to large neural networks while reducing explanation size. Our main contribution is the design of dedicated perturbation domains that eliminate the need for traversal order. FAME progressively shrinks these domains and leverages LiRPA-based bounds to discard irrelevant features, ultimately converging to a $\textbf{formal abstract minimal explanation}$. To assess explanation quality, we introduce a procedure that measures the worst-case distance between an abstract minimal explanation and a true minimal explanation. This procedure combines adversarial attacks with an optional $VERI{\large X}+$ refinement step. We benchmark FAME against $VERI{\large X}+$ and demonstrate consistent gains in both explanation size and runtime on medium- to large-scale neural networks.

Shapley additive explanations (SHAP) are widely recognised as computationally intractable for neural networks, since they induce an exponential search space over the input features. In this work, we take a first step towards scaling exact SHAP computation to larger search spaces by introducing an algorithm that leverages recent advances in neural network verification to compute arbitrarily tight exact lower and upper bounds on SHAP values for neural networks, ultimately recovering the exact SHAP values. We demonstrate that our approach scales to orders of magnitude larger search spaces than state-of-the-art exact methods. This provides an important first step towards exact SHAP computation and establishes a principled cornerstone for evaluating statistical approximation methods on larger search spaces.

We present our ongoing work on the veriFIRE project: a collaboration between industry and academia, aimed at applying verification to increase the reliability of a real-world, safety-critical system. Specifically, we target an airborne platform for wildfire detection, which incorporates two deep neural networks. We present an end-to-end methodology for verifying consistency properties in this system. Our approach encodes application-grounded requirements into solver-compatible queries for existing neural network verifiers. We study properties of interest over critical operational scenarios: (i) monotonicity of detector confidence as target intensity increases; and (ii) bounded detector response under physically plausible blur over the sensor. We instantiate these encodings using state-of-the-art neural network verification backends and evaluate them at scale on real background samples. For the first property, all verification queries are solved in under five minutes. For the second property, verification is substantially harder, highlighting key scalability challenges for richer, higher-dimensional specifications. Overall, the results demonstrate that meaningful, domain-specific guarantees can be obtained for industrial systems.

Despite significant progress in post-hoc explanation methods for neural networks, many remain heuristic and lack provable guarantees. A key approach for obtaining explanations with provable guarantees is by identifying a *cardinally-minimal* subset of input features which by itself is *provably sufficient* to determine the prediction. However, for standard neural networks, this task is often computationally infeasible, as it demands a worst-case *exponential* number of verification queries in the number of input features, each of which is NP-hard. In this work, we show that for Neural Additive Models (NAMs), a recent and more interpretable neural network family, we can *efficiently* generate explanations with such guarantees. We present a new model-specific algorithm for NAMs that generates provably cardinally-minimal explanations using only a *logarithmic* number of verification queries in the number of input features, after a parallelized preprocessing step with logarithmic runtime in the required precision is applied to each small univariate NAM component. Our algorithm not only makes the task of obtaining cardinally-minimal explanations feasible, but even outperforms existing algorithms designed to find *subset-minimal* explanations -- which may be larger and less informative but easier to compute -- despite our algorithm solving a much more difficult task. Our experiments demonstrate that, compared to previous algorithms, our approach provides provably smaller explanations than existing works and substantially reduces the computation time. Moreover, we show that our generated provable explanations offer benefits that are unattainable by standard sampling-based techniques typically used to interpret NAMs.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are fast becoming indispensable tools for software developers, assisting or even partnering with them in crafting complex programs. The advantages are evident – LLMs can significantly reduce development time, generate well-organized and comprehensible code, and occasionally suggest innovative ideas that developers might not conceive on their own. However, despite their strengths, LLMs will often introduce significant errors and present incorrect code with persuasive confidence, potentially misleading developers into accepting flawed solutions. In order to bring LLMs into the software development cycle in a more reliable manner, we propose a methodology for combining them with “traditional” software engineering techniques in a structured way, with the goal of streamlining the development process, reducing errors, and enabling users to verify crucial program properties with increased confidence. Specifically, we focus on the Scenario-Based Programming (SBP) paradigm – an event-driven, scenario-based approach for software engineering – to allow human developers to pour their expert knowledge into the LLM, as well as to inspect and verify its outputs. To evaluate our methodology, we conducted a significant case study, and used it to design and implement the Connect4 game. By combining LLMs and SBP we were able to create a highly-capable agent, which could defeat various strong existing agents. Further, in some cases, we were able to formally verify the correctness of our agent. Finally, our experience reveals interesting insights regarding the ease-of-use of our proposed approach. The full code of our case-study will be made publicly available with the final version of this paper.

*Automated circuit discovery* is a central tool in mechanistic interpretability for identifying the internal components of neural networks responsible for specific behaviors. While prior methods have made significant progress, they typically depend on heuristics or approximations and do not offer provable guarantees over continuous input domains for the resulting circuits. In this work, we leverage recent advances in neural network verification to propose a suite of automated algorithms that yield circuits with *provable guarantees*. We focus on three types of guarantees: (1) *input domain robustness*, ensuring the circuit agrees with the model across a continuous input region; (2) *robust patching*, certifying circuit alignment under continuous patching perturbations; and (3) *minimality*, formalizing and capturing a wide array of various notions of succinctness. Interestingly, we uncover a diverse set of novel theoretical connections among these three families of guarantees, with critical implications for the convergence of our algorithms. Finally, we conduct experiments with state-of-the-art verifiers on various vision models, showing that our algorithms yield circuits with substantially stronger robustness guarantees than standard circuit discovery methods, establishing a principled foundation for provable circuit discovery.

Neural network verification is often used as a core component within larger analysis procedures, which generate sequences of closely related verification queries over the same network. In existing neural network verifiers, each query is typically solved independently, and information learned during previous runs is discarded, leading to repeated exploration of the same infeasible regions of the search space. In this work, we aim to expedite verification by reducing this redundancy. We propose an incremental verification technique that reuses learned conflicts across related verification queries. The technique can be added on top of any branch-and-bound-based neural network verifier. During verification, the verifier records conflicts corresponding to learned infeasible combinations of activation phases, and retains them across runs. We formalize a refinement relation between verification queries and show that conflicts learned for a query remain valid under refinement, enabling sound conflict inheritance. Inherited conflicts are handled using a SAT solver to perform consistency checks and propagation, allowing infeasible subproblems to be detected and pruned early during search. We implement the proposed technique in the Marabou verifier and evaluate it on three verification tasks: local robustness radius determination, verification with input splitting, and minimal sufficient feature set extraction. Our experiments show that incremental conflict reuse reduces verification effort and yields speedups of up to 1.9× over a non-incremental baseline.

In this work, we investigate the effect of lookahead branching strategies in neural network verification. We present a general recipe to integrate lookahead into any branch-and-bound verifier and demonstrate how one of the current state-of-the-art branching heuristics, FSB, can be viewed as a special instantiation of the lookahead branching strategy. We also describe how, in addition to improving the quality of branching decisions, lookahead can generate additional lemmas that accelerate verification. We instantiate the method in two representative branch-and-bound-based verifiers (Marabou and α-β-CROWN), and demonstrate that lookahead leads to consistent speedups in verification time and up to 57% more solved instances. Code is available at https://github.com/ai-ar-research/lookahead-branching.

We propose FAME (Formal Abstract Minimal Explanations), a new class of abductive explanations grounded in abstract interpretation. FAME is the first method to scale to large neural networks while reducing explanation size. Our main contribution is the design of dedicated perturbation domains that eliminate the need for traversal order. FAME progressively shrinks these domains and leverages LiRPA-based bounds to discard irrelevant features, ultimately converging to a formal abstract minimal explanation. To assess explanation quality, we introduce a procedure that measures the worst-case distance between an abstract minimal explanation and a true minimal explanation. This procedure combines adversarial attacks with an optional VERIX+ refinement step. We benchmark FAME against VERIX+ and demonstrate consistent gains in both explanation size and runtime on medium- to large-scale neural networks.

Previous work has explored the computational complexity of deriving two fundamental types of explanations for ML model predictions: (1) *sufficient reasons*, which are subsets of input features that, when fixed, determine a prediction, and (2) *contrastive reasons*, which are subsets of input features that, when modified, alter a prediction. Prior studies have examined these explanations in different contexts, such as non-probabilistic versus probabilistic frameworks and local versus global settings. In this study, we introduce a unified framework for analyzing these explanations, demonstrating that they can all be characterized through the minimization of a unified probabilistic value function. We then prove that the complexity of these computations is influenced by three key properties of the value function: (1) *monotonicity*, (2) *submodularity*, and *supermodularity*. Our findings uncover some counterintuitive results regarding the nature of these properties within the explanation settings examined. For instance, although the *local* value functions do not exhibit monotonicity or submodularity/supermodularity whatsoever, we demonstrate that the *global* value functions do possess these properties. This distinction enables us to prove a series of novel polynomial-time results for computing various explanations with provable guarantees in the global explainability setting, across a range of ML models that span the interpretability spectrum, such as neural networks, decision trees, and tree ensembles. In contrast, we show that even highly simplified versions of these explanations become NP-hard to compute in the corresponding local explainability setting.

Previous work has explored the computational complexity of deriving two fundamental types of explanations for ML model predictions: (1) *sufficient reasons*, which are subsets of input features that, when fixed, determine a prediction, and (2) *contrastive reasons*, which are subsets of input features that, when modified, alter a prediction. Prior studies have examined these explanations in different contexts, such as non-probabilistic versus probabilistic frameworks and local versus global settings. In this study, we introduce a unified framework for analyzing these explanations, demonstrating that they can all be characterized through the minimization of a unified probabilistic value function. We then prove that the complexity of these computations is influenced by three key properties of the value function: (1) *monotonicity*, (2) *submodularity*, and (3) *supermodularity* - which are three fundamental properties in *combinatorial optimization*. Our findings uncover some counterintuitive results regarding the nature of these properties within the explanation settings examined. For instance, although the *local* value functions do not exhibit monotonicity or submodularity/supermodularity whatsoever, we demonstrate that the *global* value functions do possess these properties. This distinction enables us to prove a series of novel polynomial-time results for computing various explanations with provable guarantees in the global explainability setting, across a range of ML models that span the interpretability spectrum, such as neural networks, decision trees, and tree ensembles. In contrast, we show that even highly simplified versions of these explanations become NP-hard to compute in the corresponding local explainability setting.

The widespread adoption of deep neural networks (DNNs) requires efficient techniques for verifying their safety. DNN verifiers are complex tools, which might contain bugs that could compromise their soundness and undermine the reliability of the verification process. This concern can be mitigated using proofs: artifacts that are checkable by an external and reliable proof checker, and which attest to the correctness of the verification process. However, such proofs tend to be extremely large, limiting their use in many scenarios. In this work, we address this problem by minimizing proofs of unsatisfiability produced by DNN verifiers. We present algorithms that remove facts which were learned during the verification process, but which are unnecessary for the proof itself. Conceptually, our method analyzes the dependencies among facts used to deduce UNSAT, and removes facts that did not contribute. We then further minimize the proof by eliminating remaining unnecessary dependencies, using two alternative procedures. We implemented our algorithms on top of a proof producing DNN verifier, and evaluated them across several benchmarks. Our results show that our best-performing algorithm reduces proof size by 37

*Automated circuit discovery* is a central tool in mechanistic interpretability for identifying the internal components of neural networks responsible for specific behaviors. While prior methods have made significant progress, they typically depend on heuristics or approximations and do not offer provable guarantees over continuous input domains for the resulting circuits. In this work, we leverage recent advances in neural network verification to propose a suite of automated algorithms that yield circuits with *provable guarantees*. We focus on three types of guarantees: (1) *input domain robustness*, ensuring the circuit agrees with the model across a continuous input region; (2) *robust patching*, certifying circuit alignment under continuous patching perturbations; and (3) *minimality*, formalizing and capturing a wide array of various notions of succinctness. Interestingly, we uncover a diverse set of novel theoretical connections among these three families of guarantees, with critical implications for the convergence of our algorithms. Finally, we conduct experiments with state-of-the-art verifiers on various vision models, showing that our algorithms yield circuits with substantially stronger robustness guarantees than standard circuit discovery methods, establishing a principled foundation for provable circuit discovery.

The increasing integration of deep neural networks in critical systems has spawned a theoretical and practical interest in formally guaranteeing safety properties about their behavior. To achieve this, contemporary verification algorithms rely on computing linear relaxations for a network's non-linear activation functions. Existing approaches for linear relaxations typically fall into one of two categories: single-neuron relaxation, in which each activation neuron is bounded in terms of its sources; and multi-neuron relaxation, in which linear bounds involving multiple activation neurons and their sources are calculated. However, existing methods might fail to balance tightness and scalability, as single-neuron bounds might not derive sufficiently tight bounds necessary for verification to complete, whereas generating multi-neuron relaxation for all activation neurons is computationally expensive. In this paper, we present a middle-ground approach featuring partial multi-neuron relaxation, in which we generate multi-neuron bounds for only a small, heuristically selected subset of neurons. To achieve this, we build upon existing branching heuristics for selecting neurons and for optimizing bounding hyper-planes for multi-neuron bounds. We integrated our proposed method within the Marabou verifier, and obtained favorable results in comparison to existing bound tightening methods. Our experiments showcase the potential of our technique for neural network verification.

Shapley additive explanations (SHAP) are widely recognised as computationally intractable for neural networks, since they induce an exponential search space over the input features. In this work, we take a first step towards scaling exact SHAP computation to larger search spaces by introducing an algorithm that leverages recent advances in neural network verification to compute arbitrarily tight exact lower and upper bounds on SHAP values for neural networks, ultimately recovering the exact SHAP values. We demonstrate that our approach scales to orders of magnitude larger search spaces than state-of-the-art exact methods. This provides an important first step towards exact SHAP computation and establishes a principled cornerstone for evaluating statistical approximation methods on larger search spaces.

Deep neural networks (DNNs) are widely used in real-world computer vision applications, yet they remain vulnerable to errors and adversarial attacks. Formal verification offers a systematic approach to identify and mitigate these vulnerabilities, enhancing model robustness and reliability. While most existing verification methods focus on image classification models, this work extends formal verification to the more complex domain of object detection models. We propose a formulation for verifying the robustness of such models and demonstrate how state-of-the-art verification tools, originally developed for classification, can be adapted for this purpose. Through a comprehensive evaluation, we highlight the ability of formal verification to uncover vulnerabilities in object detection models, and derive formal robustness guarantees, underscoring the potential and need to further extend verification efforts in this domain. This work lays the foundation for further research into formal verification of object detection models across a broader range of computer vision applications. Our source code is publicly available online.( https://github.com/AvrahamRaviv/FVOD_2025 )

Modern verification tools for deep neural networks (DNNs) increasingly rely on abstraction to scale to realistic architectures. In parallel, proof production is becoming a critical requirement for increasing the reliability of DNN verification results. However, current proofproducing verifiers do not support abstraction-based reasoning, creating a gap between scalability and provable guarantees. We address this gap by introducing a novel framework for proof-producing abstraction-based DNN verification. Our approach modularly separates the verification task into two components: (i) proving the correctness of an abstract network, and (ii) proving the soundness of the abstraction with respect to the original DNN. The former can be handled by existing proof-producing verifiers, whereas we propose the first method for generating formal proofs for the latter. This preliminary work aims to enable scalable and trustworthy verification by supporting common abstraction techniques within a formal proof framework.