Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Contrastive Reasoning in Neural Networks

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2103.12329 v1 pith:S7332NQD submitted 2021-03-23 cs.LG cs.AIcs.CV

classification cs.LGcs.AIcs.CV
keywords reasoningcontrastiveinferenceneuraldependenciesfeed-forwardchangecontrast
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Neural networks represent data as projections on trained weights in a high dimensional manifold. The trained weights act as a knowledge base consisting of causal class dependencies. Inference built on features that identify these dependencies is termed as feed-forward inference. Such inference mechanisms are justified based on classical cause-to-effect inductive reasoning models. Inductive reasoning based feed-forward inference is widely used due to its mathematical simplicity and operational ease. Nevertheless, feed-forward models do not generalize well to untrained situations. To alleviate this generalization challenge, we propose using an effect-to-cause inference model that reasons abductively. Here, the features represent the change from existing weight dependencies given a certain effect. We term this change as contrast and the ensuing reasoning mechanism as contrastive reasoning. In this paper, we formalize the structure of contrastive reasoning and propose a methodology to extract a neural network's notion of contrast. We demonstrate the value of contrastive reasoning in two stages of a neural network's reasoning pipeline : in inferring and visually explaining decisions for the application of object recognition. We illustrate the value of contrastively recognizing images under distortions by reporting an improvement of 3.47%, 2.56%, and 5.48% in average accuracy under the proposed contrastive framework on CIFAR-10C, noisy STL-10, and VisDA datasets respectively.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. What is Missing? Explaining Neurons Activated by Absent Concepts

    cs.CV 2026-03 accept novelty 7.0 of 10

    DNNs encode concept absences that raise neuron activation; standard XAI misses them, but non-target attribution and minimization visualization uncover them and improve debiasing.

Pith tools