Decomposition of Evidence, Contradiction, and Fragility in Perturbation Responses

Perturbation methods explain model decisions by measuring prediction changes under altered inputs, but response magnitude tells us only how much a model reacts, not what that reaction means. The same magnitude can support the final factual-counterfactual difference, oppose it, or arise strongly along the perturbation path yet vanish at the endpoint. We therefore track how the contrast develops as paired inputs are progressively revealed, using the final contrast to interpret the trajectory. We i

Related evidence

These records share source-supplied organisations, an exact publisher byline, automatic topics or regions. The reason is shown on every link; related does not mean supporting, agreeing with or verifying this record.

No strong metadata relationship is available in the current record.

How to cite this record

ethics.ai (13 August 2026), “Decomposition of Evidence, Contradiction, and Fragility in Perturbation Responses,” evidence record 19186, https://ethics.ai/record/19186 (originally published by arXiv).

Use and limitations

This page is a stable index and citation surface for a source record. ethics.ai did not author the underlying report and has not independently verified every claim. Automatic topics may be imperfect. For consequential use, quote and cite the original publisher.