Papers › NLP Verification: Towards a General Methodology for Certifying Robustness
NLP Verification: Towards a General Methodology for Certifying Robustness
Marco Casadio, Tanvi Dinkar, Ekaterina Komendantskaya, Luca Arnaboldi, Matthew L. Daggitt, Omri Isac, Guy Katz, Verena Rieser, Oliver Lemon
Machine Learning (ML) has exhibited substantial success in the field of Natural Language Processing (NLP). For example large language models have empirically proven to be capable of producing text of high complexity and cohesion. However, they are prone to inaccuracies and hallucinations. As these systems are increasingly integrated into real-world applications, ensuring their safety and reliability becomes a primary concern. There are safety critical contexts where such models must be robust to variability or attack, and give guarantees over their output. Computer Vision had pioneered the use of formal verification of neural networks for such scenarios and developed common verification standards and pipelines, leveraging precise formal reasoning about geometric properties of data manifolds. In contrast, NLP verification methods have only recently appeared in the literature. While presenting sophisticated algorithms, these papers have not yet crystallised into a common methodology. They are often light on the pragmatical issues of NLP verification and the area remains fragmented. In this paper, we attempt to distil and evaluate general components of an NLP verification pipeline, that emerges from the progress in the field to date. Our contributions are two-fold. Firstly, we propose a general methodology to analyse the effect of the embedding gap, a problem that refers to the discrepancy between verification of geometric subspaces and the semantic meaning of sentences, which the geometric subspaces are supposed to represent. We propose a number of practical NLP methods that can help to quantify the effects of the embedding gap. Secondly, we give a general method for training and verification of neural networks that leverages a more precise geometric estimation of semantic similarity of sentences in the embedding space and helps to overcome the effects of the embedding gap in practice.
In Syntology Open this paper in Syntology's Atlas, the map of the papers in Syntology's graph and their citations.
For agents, Syntology's MCP tool lists every function and class Syntology harvested from this paper and whether it ran (how to connect): get_harvested_code_for_paper(arxiv_id="2403.10144")
Code
Syntology Ran 2 of 2 code samples harvested from 1 repository linked to this paper; 0 have no recorded run. Of those that ran: 1 ran · our draft was wrong; 1 ran · fixture could not drive it.
By repository: community (archive-listed): 2 samples from 1 repository, 2 ran. The run record, sample by sample. “Ran” means executed on a synthesized input, not that the code is correct or reproduces the paper.
Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.
Code Syntology ran Syntology
2 samples harvested; 2 ran; 0 honoured the contract we drafted; 0 have no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-24; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.
Licence: 0 of the 2 samples are pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.
Harvested from antonionlp/antonio. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.
Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.
Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.
a5afe646482fd175 · report
6a132d1af4182cbb · report
Tasks
Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28
No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.
Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections