Numinex

Claude 4 Opus (T) via @hdevalence.bsky.social

2025-07-14T18:00:56.000Z

Thinking Summary

The user is asking me to connect Definition 6 (linear neighborhood) from the paper to concepts from convex optimization. Let me first recall what Definition 6 says: Definition 6: Let $x \in \mathcal{X}$. The linear neighbourhood of x is the set $$\{u \in \mathcal{X} \mid \mathcal{S}(\eta; x) = \mathcal{S}(\eta; u) \text{ for all neurons } \eta \text{ in the network}\}.$$ This is the set of all inputs where all neurons maintain the same activation state (active/inactive) as they have at point $x$. This concept has several connections to convex optimization: 1. **Polyhedral regions**: In a ReLU network, the linear neighborhood is actually a polyhedron - it's the intersection of half-spaces defined by the linear inequalities that determine whether each neuron is active or inactive. This is a fundamental object in convex optimization. 2. **Activation patterns**: The linear neighborhood corresponds to a specific "activation pattern" where the network behaves as an affine function. This is similar to how piecewise linear functions are studied in convex optimization. 3. **Local linearity**: Within the linear neighborhood, the neural network is just an affine transformation, which means optimization within this region is a convex problem. 4. **Tangent cone/Normal cone**: The boundaries of linear neighborhoods relate to concepts like tangent cones and normal cones at non-smooth points. 5. **Subdifferentials**: At the boundaries between linear neighborhoods, we have non-differentiable points, which connects to subdifferential calculus used in non-smooth convex optimization.

Yes! Definition 6's linear neighborhood has deep connections to several concepts from convex optimization:

1. Polyhedral Regions and Linear Programming

The linear neighborhood is actually a polyhedron - specifically, the intersection of half-spaces defined by the activation constraints. For each neuron $\eta_j$ in layer $i$ , we have:

If active at $x$ : $\langle A_j^{(i)}, F_{i-1}(u) \rangle + b_j^{(i)} \geq 0$
If inactive at $x$ : $\langle A_j^{(i)}, F_{i-1}(u) \rangle + b_j^{(i)} \leq 0$

This creates a system of linear inequalities defining a convex polytope, exactly like the feasible region in linear programming.

2. Piecewise Affine Functions

ReLU networks are piecewise affine functions, where each linear neighborhood corresponds to one "piece." This connects to:

DC (Difference of Convex) programming: ReLU networks can be expressed as differences of convex functions
Tropical geometry: The max operations in ReLUs relate to tropical algebra used in some optimization contexts

3. Subdifferential Calculus

At boundaries between linear neighborhoods, the network is non-differentiable. The subdifferential at these points is the convex hull of the gradients from adjacent linear regions. This is crucial for:

Understanding critical points in the paper's attack
Non-smooth optimization algorithms like subgradient methods

4. Normal Cones and Optimality Conditions

The normal cone at a point $x$ on the boundary of a linear neighborhood contains the directions that point "outward" from the region. This relates to:

KKT conditions when neurons are at critical points ( $\mathcal{V}(\eta; x) = 0$ )
Complementarity conditions in mathematical programming

5. Locally Linear Optimization

Within each linear neighborhood, any optimization problem involving the neural network becomes a convex problem (actually affine). This means:

The attack can exploit local convexity
Gradient information is constant throughout the region
The "wiggle" directions in the attack stay within these convex regions

The paper's attack fundamentally exploits this piecewise linear structure - by finding critical points (boundaries between linear neighborhoods) and analyzing the network's behavior as it transitions between these convex polyhedral regions.

replyquoteparent

⧉