Are Logistic Models Really Interpretable?

Overview

• The paper focuses on the interpretability of Logistic Regression (LR), a common AI classification model, and proposes a new model called Linearized Additive Models (LAMs) as a more interpretable alternative.
• The researchers conducted a user study that showed skilled participants struggled to reliably reproduce the behavior of small LR models based on the trained parameters.
• To address this, the authors introduce LAMs, which provide an optimal piecewise linear approximation of any trained additive model with a sigmoid link function, without the need for retraining.
• The paper argues that LAMs are more interpretable than LR, and demonstrates that participants performed much better on model reasoning tasks when using LAMs compared to LR.
• The authors also show that LAMs maintain good performance in terms of ROC-AUC and calibration, compared to their logistic counterparts, across a range of public financial modeling datasets.

Plain English Explanation

One of the simplest AI classification models is called Logistic Regression (LR). However, the authors argue that it can be difficult for people to understand how LR models make decisions based on the trained model parameters.

To address this, the researchers created a new type of model called Linearized Additive Models (LAMs). LAMs take an existing trained additive model, like LR, and create an optimal piecewise linear approximation of it. This makes the model much easier for people to understand, without having to retrain the original model.

The researchers conducted a user study where they asked skilled participants to try to reproduce the behavior of small LR models based on the trained parameters. The participants struggled to do this reliably, showing the difficulty of interpreting LR models.

In contrast, when the researchers showed participants the same information using LAMs, the participants were able to solve the model reasoning tasks much more accurately. This suggests that LAMs are indeed more interpretable than standard LR models.

Importantly, the paper also shows that LAMs maintain good performance in terms of measures like ROC-AUC and calibration, compared to the original LR models. This means you don't have to sacrifice model performance to get the benefits of improved interpretability.

Overall, this research highlights the importance of creating AI models that are not just accurate, but also easy for people to understand and reason about. The Linearized Additive Models proposed in this paper seem to be a promising step in that direction.

Technical Explanation

The paper begins by noting the growing demand for open and trustworthy AI models, which has led to increased publishing of model weights. However, the authors argue that one of the simplest AI classification models, Logistic Regression (LR), has an unwieldy interpretation of its model weights, making it difficult for users to understand how the model makes decisions.

To investigate this, the researchers conducted a user study where skilled participants were asked to reproduce the behavior of small LR models given the trained parameters. The results showed that participants struggled to reliably reproduce the models' actions, demonstrating the challenge of interpreting LR.

As a solution, the authors introduce Linearized Additive Models (LAMs), which provide an optimal piecewise linear approximation of any trained additive model equipped with a sigmoid link function, such as LR. Importantly, this can be done without the need to retrain the original model.

The paper argues that LAMs are more interpretable than logistic models, and the researchers conducted another user study to support this claim. Participants were shown to solve model reasoning tasks much more accurately when using LAMs compared to LR, given the same information.

Furthermore, the authors evaluate the performance of LAMs compared to their logistic counterparts on a broad suite of public financial modeling datasets. They show that LAMs do not suffer from large penalties in terms of ROC-AUC and calibration, suggesting that the improved interpretability does not come at the cost of model performance.

Critical Analysis

The paper makes a compelling case for the need to improve the interpretability of AI classification models, using Logistic Regression as a case study. The user studies provide empirical evidence that skilled participants struggle to reliably interpret the behavior of LR models based on the trained parameters alone.

The introduction of Linearized Additive Models (LAMs) as a more interpretable alternative is a promising solution. The fact that LAMs can be derived from existing trained models without the need for retraining is a practical advantage. The authors' demonstration of LAMs' improved interpretability and comparable performance to LR models is also convincing.

However, the paper does not address the potential limitations or drawbacks of LAMs. For example, it would be valuable to understand how the piecewise linear approximation might impact the model's ability to capture complex nonlinear relationships in the data, and whether there are any scenarios where the performance of LAMs might significantly lag behind their logistic counterparts.

Additionally, while the user studies provide valuable insights, it would be helpful to have a deeper understanding of the specific types of reasoning tasks that participants were asked to perform, and how these tasks relate to real-world model interpretation challenges.

Overall, this research makes a valuable contribution to the ongoing efforts to improve the interpretability of AI models. The Linearized Additive Models proposed here seem to be a promising step forward, but further research is needed to fully understand their limitations and potential applications.

Conclusion

This paper addresses a critical challenge in the field of AI: the need for open and trustworthy models that are interpretable to users. By focusing on the interpretability of Logistic Regression, a common classification model, the authors have identified a significant barrier to understanding how these models make decisions.

The introduction of Linearized Additive Models (LAMs) as a more interpretable alternative is a valuable contribution. LAMs provide an optimal piecewise linear approximation of trained additive models, making them much easier for people to understand without sacrificing model performance.

The user studies conducted in this research demonstrate the potential of LAMs to improve model interpretation, and the authors' broader analysis of model performance on financial datasets suggests that these benefits can be achieved without compromising other important model qualities.

As AI systems become increasingly prevalent in our lives, the need for transparent and interpretable models will only become more critical. This paper represents an important step towards that goal, and the insights it provides can help guide future research and development in this vital area.