Papers › Comparing differentiable logics for learning with logical constraints
Comparing differentiable logics for learning with logical constraints
Thomas Flinkow, Barak A. Pearlmutter, Rosemary Monahan
The archive published only this paper's code-link row. Authors, date and abstract are from arXiv's metadata (CC0), read from the Kaggle arXiv metadata snapshot of 2026-09-12 where its title matched the archive's; the title is the archive's.
Extensive research on formal verification of machine learning systems indicates that learning from data alone often fails to capture underlying background knowledge, such as specifications implicitly available in the data. Various neural network verifiers have been developed to ensure that a machine-learnt model satisfies correctness and safety properties; however, they typically assume a trained network with fixed weights. A promising approach for creating machine learning models that inherently satisfy constraints after training is to encode background knowledge as explicit logical constraints that guide the learning process via so-called differentiable logics. In this paper, we experimentally compare and evaluate various logics from the literature, present our findings, and highlight open problems for future work. We evaluate differentiable logics with respect to their suitability in training, and use a neural network verifier to check their ability to establish formal guarantees. The complete source code for our experiments is available as an easy-to-use framework for training with differentiable logics at https://github.com/tflinkow/comparing-differentiable-logics.
Code
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
Not run by Syntology. Nothing on this page verifies that the listed code works.
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