#01Nov 10, 2026
cs.CL
Mechanistic Interpretability Needs a Logic of Inference
Zhimin Hu, Chen Jiang, Hanbo Xie and 2 more
Neural networks are increasingly studied not merely as predictive systems, but as complex systems whose internal computations are themselves objects of scientific inquiry. Recent progress in mechanistic interpretability (MI) has made it possible to identify neurons, features, circuits, population structures, and dynamical patterns associated with model behavior. As these tools improve, attention is shifting from what can be observed inside a model to how those observations support mechanistic explanations. We examine the parallel efforts of neuroscience and MI to address this question and identify recurring inferential bottlenecks when inferring mechanisms from complex neural systems. We propose five principles and organize them into a recursive logic for a more rigorous procedure of mechanistic inference. These principles provide a framework that supports scientific discovery in two senses: it helps turn local interpretability findings into cumulative knowledge of mechanisms within models, and it makes those mechanisms sufficiently precise to generate testable hypotheses about domains beyond the models. Evidence beyond MI is ultimately required to establish what model mechanisms reveal about the world.
#02Nov 10, 2026
cs.LG
When Does the Real Wiring Win? Testing connectome structure-function claims against unmeasured physiology
Yeyuan Liu
Connectome-constrained models are often used to argue that a measured wiring diagram outperforms shuffled or rewired wiring, and hence that structure shapes function. Such comparisons can confound wiring with how the models are tuned: a connectome fixes who connects to whom, not the excitability, gains or plasticity rates the model also needs, and modellers often tune these until the real-wiring model works. We separate three estimands: physiology tuned on the real wiring and transferred to nulls (P1), each wiring tuned on its own (P2), and P2 restricted to physiology consistent with independent data (P3). The biases involved are known in machine learning (under-tuned baselines, inherited weights, winner's curse); we measure what they do to biological conclusions, using synthetic ground truth, placebo nulls and three Drosophila circuit models. Some claims survive every protocol we test: segregated reward and punishment dopamine improves learning, and head-direction topography is required for a persistent bump. Others do not. In the mushroom body, the real Kenyon-cell output wiring beats a cross-subtype identity shuffle by 0.09 under P1 and P2 but loses to it by 0.09 under P3 (95% CIs exclude zero; held-out runs confirm). The verdict is set by the share of alpha'beta' cells among active Kenyon cells, which P1 selects low; at the share implied by imaging (about 44%) the real-wiring model fails to learn, exposing a model inadequacy rather than a deficit of the fly's wiring. In flyvis, P1 penalises a mirrored connectome, which has a constructed solution within 0.07 (median) of the real error, more than a spatially shuffled one in 50 of 50 members; the ranking survives ten-fold longer retraining but depends on the checkpoint at fifty-fold. A credible structural claim needs matched optimisation, data-constrained physiology and a model that still works there.
#03Nov 10, 2026
stat.ME
One Curve, Different Weights: AUC, the Brier Score, Decision-Weighted AUC, and the Policy Youden Index
Yegor Baranovski
AUC and the Brier score are standard summaries of a binary risk score, yet they can rank models differently. We introduce a weighted AUC, AUC$_π$, which weights each pair of observations by how differently a decision maker with probability of acting $π$ treats them. We show that all three are built on weighted averages of one curve, the Youden index $J(t) = \mathrm{TPR}(t) - \mathrm{FPR}(t)$ across cutoffs $t$, and that the averages differ in the weights they put on the cutoffs. Each weights a cutoff by how much something rises across it: for AUC, the distribution of all scores; for the Brier score, the true probability $\mathbb{E}[Y \mid S]$; for AUC$_π$, the decision maker's probability of acting. Up to normalization, AUC$_π$ is the Brier skill score of the ideal forecast with its weight moved to the cutoffs the decision maker cares about. We also show that weighting pairs by $|π(s) - π(s')|$ is, up to scale, the only pair weight fixed in advance that makes a pair-weighted AUC an average of the Youden curve for every score distribution. As a ranking measure, AUC weights every model the same way. Hand (2009) shows that it can also be read as an average over cost thresholds, and in that reading each model weights the thresholds differently. The numerator of AUC$_π$, which we call the policy Youden index, is the expected share of class 1 a fixed policy acts on minus the expected share of class 0. It judges every model by the same policy and so avoids this; the full ratio AUC$_π$ does not.
#04Nov 10, 2026
cs.CV
Medical Image Segmentation: Foundation Model Adaptation versus Task-Specific Training
Emre Kutlusan, Yongmin Li
Foundation models pretrained on large natural-image collections are increasingly adapted for medical image segmentation, in the expectation that they will replace models trained for each task. Most comparisons, however, use data from the training distribution and a single task-specific baseline whose configuration is rarely justified, and therefore provide limited evidence of performance at new clinical sites. It also remains unclear how much of a foundation model must be adapted, and what determines this. We adapted a foundation model, DINOv2, with strategies ranging from tuning only its bias terms to full fine-tuning, and compared it with U-Nets and ResU-Nets trained from scratch. Experiments covered colonoscopy, breast ultrasound and dermoscopy, with testing on held-out data from the training source and on independent datasets from other institutions. The adapted foundation model generalised better on every external dataset. Within the training distribution, the task-specific models remained competitive when training data were abundant, and delineated boundaries more precisely, while the foundation model more often missed small lesions. Only a small fraction of the foundation model required adaptation, and the capacity needed was determined by the imaging domain rather than by the adaptation method. A widely used polyp test set was also found to duplicate images from another benchmark. Foundation-model adaptation is therefore warranted where models must work across sites, with capacity selected on the target domain.
#05Nov 10, 2026
cs.CV
RS-JEPA: Remote Sensing Joint-Embedding Predictive Architecture with Scan-Path Views for Cross-Sensor Image Retrieval
Tanishq Rachamalla, Srishti Kaushik, Muhammad Attique Khan and 2 more
Cross-sensor remote sensing image retrieval aims to find scenes with the same content across heterogeneous sensors, such as SAR and optical or panchromatic (PAN) and multispectral (MS) imagery, without manual labels. Existing self-supervised methods either reconstruct sensor-specific pixel detail, align each image only with its co-registered twin, or rely on large transformers with 118-173M parameters (and up to 398M). We introduce RS-JEPA, a compact joint-embedding predictive framework built on a Vision Mamba encoder shared by both sensors. Since a state-space encoder reads an image as an ordered sequence of patches, we propose scan-path views, which treat two reading orders of the same image as two views with identical pixels and predict the hidden patches in one order from the visible patches in the other.To keep this prediction challenging, we propose Adversarial View Coupling (AVC), which learns the hardest split of the visible patches, and a neighbourhood consensus loss that aligns the scene similarities of both sensors. Extensive experiments on SAR-optical (BEN-14K, CBRSIR-VS) and PAN-MS (DSRSID) benchmarks demonstrate that RS-JEPA achieves the highest F1@5 among twelve re-implemented methods (72.92, 80.35 and 94.43) with a retrieval network of only 3.88M parameters (14.57M in training, 8-16times fewer than prior JEPA retrievers). Like prior methods, RS-JEPA trains on co-registered pairs. Our results highlight reading order as a source of self-supervised views. code: https://github.com/Tanishq251/RSJEPA.