Archive 14.11.2023

Page 4 of 6
1 2 3 4 5 6

Asymmetric Certified Robustness via Feature-Convex Neural Networks

Asymmetric Certified Robustness via Feature-Convex Neural Networks

TLDR: We propose the asymmetric certified robustness problem, which requires certified robustness for only one class and reflects real-world adversarial scenarios. This focused setting allows us to introduce feature-convex classifiers, which produce closed-form and deterministic certified radii on the order of milliseconds.

diagram illustrating the FCNN architecture

Figure 1. Illustration of feature-convex classifiers and their certification for sensitive-class inputs. This architecture composes a Lipschitz-continuous feature map $\varphi$ with a learned convex function $g$. Since $g$ is convex, it is globally underapproximated by its tangent plane at $\varphi(x)$, yielding certified norm balls in the feature space. Lipschitzness of $\varphi$ then yields appropriately scaled certificates in the original input space.

Despite their widespread usage, deep learning classifiers are acutely vulnerable to adversarial examples: small, human-imperceptible image perturbations that fool machine learning models into misclassifying the modified input. This weakness severely undermines the reliability of safety-critical processes that incorporate machine learning. Many empirical defenses against adversarial perturbations have been proposed—often only to be later defeated by stronger attack strategies. We therefore focus on certifiably robust classifiers, which provide a mathematical guarantee that their prediction will remain constant for an $\ell_p$-norm ball around an input.

Conventional certified robustness methods incur a range of drawbacks, including nondeterminism, slow execution, poor scaling, and certification against only one attack norm. We argue that these issues can be addressed by refining the certified robustness problem to be more aligned with practical adversarial settings.

Read More

A gecko-inspired twist on robotic handling

The subtle adhesive forces that allow geckos to seemingly defy gravity, cling to walls and walk across ceilings have inspired a team of researchers in South Korea to build a robotic device that can pick up and release delicate materials without damage. The team, based at Kyungpook National University and Dong-A University, has published their research work in Science and Technology of Advanced Materials. The researchers are hoping it can be applied to the transfer of objects by robotic systems.

A robot inspired by mantis shrimp to explore narrow underwater environments

Nature is the primary source of inspiration for many existing robotic systems, designed to replicate the appearance and behavior of various living organisms. By artificially reproducing biological processes, these robots can help tackle complex real-world problems more effectively.

California is the robotics capital of the world

I came to the Silicon Valley region in 2010 because I knew it was the robotics center of the world, but it certainly doesn’t get anywhere near the media attention that some other robotics regions do. In California, robotics technology is a small fish in a much bigger technology pond, and that tends to conceal how important Californian companies are to the robotics revolution.

This conservative dataset from Pitchbook [Vertical: Robotics and Drones] provides data for 7166 robotics and drones companies, although a more customized search would provide closer to 10,000 robotics companies world wide. Regions ordered by size are:

  • North America 2802
  • Asia 2337
  • Europe 2285
  • Middle East 321
  • Oceania 155
  • South America 111
  • Africa 63
  • Central America 13

 

USA robotics companies by state

  1. California = 843 (667) * no of companies followed by no of head quarters
  2. Texas = 220 (159)
  3. New York = 193 (121)
  4. Massachusetts = 191 (135)
  5. Florida = 136 (95)
  6. Pennsylvania = 113 (89)
  7. Washington = 85 (61)
  8. Colorado = 83 (57)
  9. Virginia = 81 (61)
  10. Michigan = 70 (56)
  11. Illinois = 66 (43)
  12. Ohio = 65 (56)
  13. Georgia = 64 (46)
  14. New Jersey = 53 (36)
  15. Delaware = 49 (18)
  16. Maryland = 48 (34)
  17. Arizona = 48 (37)
  18. Nevada = 42 (29)
  19. North Carolina = 39 (29)
  20. Minnesota = 31 (25)
  21. Utah = 30 (24)
  22. Indiana = 29 (26)
  23. Oregon = 29 (20)
  24. Connecticut = 27 (22)
  25. DC = 26 (12)
  26. Alabama = 25 (21)
  27. Tennessee = 20 (18)
  28. Iowa = 17 (14)
  29. New Mexico = 17 (15)
  30. Missouri = 17 (16)
  31. Wisconsin = 15 (12)
  32. North Dakota = 14 (8)
  33. South Carolina = 13 (11)
  34. New Hampshire = 13 (12)
  35. Nebraska = 13 (11)
  36. Oklahoma = 10 (8)
  37. Kentucky = 10 (7)
  38. Kansas = 9 (9)
  39. Louisiana = 9 (8)
  40. Rhode Island = 8 (6)
  41. Idaho = 8 (6)
  42. Maine = 5 (5)
  43. Montana = 5 (4)
  44. Wyoming = 5 (3)
  45. Mississippi = 3 (1)
  46. Arkansas = 3 (2)
  47. Alaska = 3 (3)
  48. Hawaii = 2 (1)
  49. West Virginia = 1 (1)
  50. South Dakota = 1 (0)

Note – this number in brackets is for HQ locations, whereas the first number is for all company locations. The end results and rankings are practically the same.

 

ASIA robotics companies by country

  1. China = 1350
  2. Japan = 283
  3. India = 261
  4. South Korea = 246
  5. Israel = 193
  6. Hong Kong = 72
  7. Russia = 69
  8. United Arab Emirates = 50
  9. Turkey = 48
  10. Malaysia = 35
  11. Taiwan = 21
  12. Saudi Arabia = 19
  13. Thailand = 13
  14. Vietnam = 12
  15. Indonesia = 10
  16. Lebanon = 7
  17. Kazakhstan = 3
  18. Iran = 3
  19. Kuwait = 3
  20. Oman = 3
  21. Qatar = 3
  22. Pakistan = 3
  23. Philippines = 2
  24. Bahrain = 2
  25. Georgia = 2
  26. Sri Lanka = 2
  27. Azerbaijan = 1
  28. Nepal = 1
  29. Armenia = 1
  30. Burma/Myanmar = 1

Countries with no robotics; Yemen, Iraq, Syria, Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Syria, Jordan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Mongolia, Cambodia, Laos, North Korea, East Timor.

 

UK/EUROPE robotics companies by country

  1. United Kingdom = 443
  2. Germany = 331
  3. France = 320
  4. Spain = 159
  5. Netherlands = 156
  6. Switzerland = 140
  7. Italy = 125
  8. Denmark = 115
  9. Sweden = 85
  10. Norway = 80
  11. Poland = 74
  12. Belgium = 72
  13. Russia = 69
  14. Austria = 51
  15. Turkey = 48
  16. Finland = 45
  17. Portugal = 36
  18. Ireland = 28
  19. Estonia = 24
  20. Ukraine = 22
  21. Czech Republic = 19
  22. Romania = 19
  23. Hungary = 18
  24. Lithuania = 18
  25. Latvia = 15
  26. Greece = 15
  27. Bulgaria = 11
  28. Slovakia = 10
  29. Croatia = 7
  30. Slovenia = 6
  31. Serbia = 6
  32. Belarus = 4
  33. Iceland = 3
  34. Cyprus = 2
  35. Bosnia & Herzegovina = 1

Countries with no robotics; Andorra, Montenegro, Albania, Macedonia, Kosovo, Moldova, Malta, Vatican City.

 

CANADA robotics companies by region

  1. Ontario = 144
  2. British Colombia = 60
  3. Quebec = 53
  4. Alberta = 34
  5. Manitoba = 7
  6. Saskatchewan = 6
  7. Newfoundland & Labrador = 2
  8. Yukon = 1

Regions with no robotics; Nunavut, Northwest Territories.

Stable and efficient robotic artificial muscles built upon new material combinations

Actuators, which convert electrical energy into motion or force, play a pivotal role in daily life, albeit often going unnoticed. Soft material-based actuators, in particular, have gained scientific attention in recent years due to their lightweight, quiet operation, and biodegradability. A straightforward approach to creating soft actuators involves employing multi-material structures, such as "pockets" made of flexible plastic films filled with oils and coated with conductive plastics.

Robot Talk Episode 61 – Masoumeh Mansouri

Claire chatted to Masoumeh (Iran) Mansouri from the University of Birmingham about culturally sensitive robots and planning in complex environments.

Masoumeh Mansouri is an Associate Professor in the School of Computer Science at the University of Birmingham. Her research includes two complementary areas: (i) developing hybrid robot planning methods for unstructured environments shared with humans, and (ii) exploring topics at the intersection of cultural theories and robotics. In the latter, her main goal is to study whether/how robots can be culturally sensitive given the broad definitions of culture in different fields of study.

A centimeter-scale quadruped leverages curved-crease origami

Centimeter-scale walking and crawling robots are in demand both for their ability to explore tight or cluttered environments and for their low fabrication costs. Now, pulling from origami-inspired construction, researchers led by Cynthia Sung, Gabel Family Term Assistant Professor in the School of Engineering and Applied Science's Mechanical Engineering and Applied Mechanics (MEAM) Department, have crafted a more simplified approach to the design and fabrication of these robots.
Page 4 of 6
1 2 3 4 5 6