mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Modular Jets for Supervised Pipelines: Diagnosing Mirage vs Identifiability

arXiv 2512.05638 ↗First posted 5 Dec 2025cs.LG cs.AI stat.MLcited by 1

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Classical supervised learning evaluates models primarily via predictive risk on hold-out data. Such evaluations quantify how well a function behaves on a distribution, but they do not address whether the internal decomposition of a model is uniquely determined by the data and evaluation design. In this paper, we introduce Modular Jets for regression and classification pipelines. Given a task manifold (input space), a modular decomposition, and access to module-level representations, we estimate empirical jets, which are local linear response maps that describe how each module reacts to small structured perturbations of the input. We propose an empirical notion of mirage regimes, where multiple distinct modular decompositions induce indistinguishable jets and thus remain observationally equivalent, and contrast this with an identifiable regime, where the observed jets single out a decomposition up to natural symmetries. In the setting of two-module linear regression pipelines we prove a jet-identifiability theorem. Under mild rank assumptions and access to module-level jets, the internal factorisation is uniquely determined, whereas risk-only evaluation admits a large family of mirage decompositions that implement the same input-to-output map. We then present an algorithm (MoJet) for empirical jet estimation and mirage diagnostics, and illustrate the framework using linear and deep regression as well as pipeline classification.

Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 8 of its 20 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 5 Dec 2025.

Builds on

8 of 20 references.

References · 8

  1. 2017Towards A Rigorous Science of Interpretable Machine Learningcited by 1,416
  2. 2018Challenging Common Assumptions in the Unsupervised Learning of Disentangled Representationscited by 941
  3. 2018Explaining Explanations: An Overview of Interpretability of Machine Learningcited by 508
  4. 2016Unsupervised Feature Extraction by Time-Contrastive Learning and Nonlinear ICAcited by 273
  5. 2021Contrastive Learning Inverts the Data Generating Processcited by 221
  6. 2021Interpretable Deep Learning: Interpretation, Interpretability, Trustworthiness, and Beyondcited by 118
  7. 2023Nonparametric Identifiability of Causal Representations from Unknown Interventionscited by 106
  8. 2025Mechanistic understanding and validation of large AI models with SemanticLenscited by 29

Built on by

Cited by year

Citing papers per year: 2025: 1.

1 paper.