Closed-form interpretation of neural network classifiers with symbolic gradients
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract I introduce a unified framework for finding a closed-form interpretation of any single neuron in an artificial neural network. Using this framework I demonstrate how to interpret neural network classifiers to reveal closed-form expressions of the concepts encoded in their decision boundaries. In contrast to neural network-based regression, for classification, it is in general impossible to express the neural network in the form of a symbolic equation even if the neural network itself bases its classification on a quantity that can be written as a closed-form equation. The interpretation framework is based on embedding trained neural networks into an equivalence class of functions that encode the same concept. I interpret these neural networks by finding an intersection between the equivalence class and human-readable equations defined by a symbolic search space. The approach is not limited to classifiers or full neural networks and can be applied to arbitrary neurons in hidden layers or latent spaces.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it