In this task, you are given the abstract of a research paper. Your task is to generate a summary of this abstract. Your summary should not be very short, but it's better if it's not more than 30 words.

Example Input: Program verification offers a framework for ensuring program correctness and therefore systematically eliminating different classes of bugs. Inferring loop invariants is one of the main challenges behind automated verification of real-world programs which often contain many loops. In this paper, we present Continuous Logic Network (CLN), a novel neural architecture for automatically learning loop invariants directly from program execution traces. Unlike existing neural networks, CLNs can learn precise and explicit representations of formulas in Satisfiability Modulo Theories (SMT)  for loop invariants from program execution traces. We develop a new sound and complete semantic mapping for assigning SMT formulas to continuous truth values that allows CLNs to be trained efficiently. We use CLNs to implement a new inference system for loop invariants, CLN2INV, that significantly outperforms existing approaches on the popular Code2Inv dataset. CLN2INV is the first tool to solve all 124 theoretically solvable problems in the Code2Inv dataset. Moreover, CLN2INV takes only 1.1 second on average for each problem, which is 40 times faster than existing approaches. We further demonstrate that CLN2INV can even learn 12 significantly more complex loop invariants than the ones required for the Code2Inv dataset.
Example Output: We introduce the Continuous Logic Network (CLN), a novel neural architecture for automatically learning loop invariants and general SMT formulas.

Example Input: Interpreting generative adversarial network (GAN) training as approximate divergence minimization has been theoretically insightful, has spurred discussion, and has lead to theoretically and practically interesting extensions such as f-GANs and Wasserstein GANs. For both classic GANs and f-GANs, there is an original variant of training and a "non-saturating" variant which uses an alternative form of generator update. The original variant is theoretically easier to study, but the alternative variant frequently performs better and is recommended for use in practice. The alternative generator update is often regarded as a simple modification to deal with optimization issues, and it appears to be a common misconception that the two variants minimize the same divergence. In this short note we derive the divergences approximately minimized by the original and alternative variants of GAN and f-GAN training. This highlights important differences between the two variants. For example, we show that the alternative variant of KL-GAN training actually minimizes the reverse KL divergence, and that the alternative variant of conventional GAN training minimizes a "softened" version of the reverse KL. We hope these results may help to clarify some of the theoretical discussion surrounding the divergence minimization view of GAN training.
Example Output: Typical GAN training doesn't optimize Jensen-Shannon, but something like a reverse KL divergence.

Example Input: 	Despite a growing literature on explaining neural networks, no consensus has been reached on how to explain a neural network decision or how to evaluate an explanation.
	 Our contributions in this paper are twofold. First, we investigate schemes to combine explanation methods and reduce model uncertainty to obtain a single aggregated explanation. The aggregation is more robust and aligns better with the neural network than any single explanation method..
	 Second, we propose a new approach to evaluating explanation methods that circumvents the need for manual evaluation and is not reliant on the alignment of neural networks and humans decision processes.
Example Output:
We show in theory and in practice that combining multiple explanation methods for DNN benefits the explanation.