Papers › Counterexample-Guided Learning of Monotonic Neural Networks

Counterexample-Guided Learning of Monotonic Neural Networks

16 Jun 2020NeurIPS 2020 12arXiv:2006.08852archive 2025-07-28

Aishwarya Sivaraman, Golnoosh Farnadi, Todd Millstein, Guy Van Den Broeck

The widespread adoption of deep learning is often attributed to its automatic feature construction with minimal inductive bias. However, in many real-world tasks, the learned function is intended to satisfy domain-specific constraints. We focus on monotonicity constraints, which are common and require that the function's output increases with increasing values of specific input features. We develop a counterexample-guided technique to provably enforce monotonicity constraints at prediction time. Additionally, we propose a technique to use monotonicity as an inductive bias for deep learning. It works by iteratively incorporating monotonicity counterexamples in the learning process. Contrary to prior work in monotonic learning, we target general ReLU neural networks and do not further restrict the hypothesis space. We have implemented these techniques in a tool called COMET. Experiments on real-world datasets demonstrate that our approach achieves state-of-the-art results compared to existing monotonic learners, and can improve the model quality compared to those that were trained without taking monotonicity constraints into account.

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

18 samples harvested; 0 ran; 0 honoured the contract we drafted; 18 have no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-24; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.

Licence: 0 of the 18 samples are pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.

Harvested from AishwaryaSivaraman/COMET. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.

Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.

Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.

Tasks

Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28

No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.

Methods

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