Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

different kernel size and stride in BoundMaxPool #39

Open
xiangchong1 opened this issue Jan 11, 2023 · 2 comments
Open

different kernel size and stride in BoundMaxPool #39

xiangchong1 opened this issue Jan 11, 2023 · 2 comments
Labels
enhancement New feature or request

Comments

@xiangchong1
Copy link

Hello, thanks for the great work!
I noticed that the BoundMaxPool requires to have equal kernel size and stride
https://github.com/Verified-Intelligence/auto_LiRPA/blob/master/auto_LiRPA/operators/pooling.py#L66

Is there any way to remove this constraint? For example, the original ResNet implementation uses maxpooling with a kernel size of 3 and stride of 2. If I use that model, the bound_backward() would raise a ValueError. Thank you!

@huanzhang12 huanzhang12 added the enhancement New feature or request label Feb 1, 2023
@huanzhang12
Copy link
Member

Thanks for reporting this problem to us. We will add this to our to-do list and this may be fixed in a future release. However, it may take some time to add this support. If you want to train a network for verification, it is better to avoid maxpooling. Average pooling is more verification friendly.

@HanjiangHu
Copy link

Thanks for the awesome work. Here is a relevant kind reminder that in the future release, it would be much appreciated if bound_backward of MaxPooling could be implemented for the asymmetric padding cases https://github.com/Verified-Intelligence/auto_LiRPA/blob/master/auto_LiRPA/operators/pooling.py#L175, making it easier to satisfy the constraint among kernel size, stride and padding for different input image sizes. Thank you!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants