Generalized Additive Models (GAMs) are commonly considered interpretable within the ML community, as their structure makes the relationship between inputs and outputs relatively understandable. Therefore, it may seem natural to hypothesize that obtaining meaningful explanations for GAMs could be performed efficiently and would not be computationally infeasible. In this work, we challenge this hypothesis by analyzing the computational complexity of generating different explanations for various forms of GAMs across multiple contexts. Our analysis reveals a surprisingly diverse landscape of both positive and negative complexity outcomes. Particularly, under standard complexity assumptions such as P =NP, we establish several key findings: (i) in stark contrast to many other common ML models, the complexity of generating explanations for GAMs is heavily influenced by the structure of the input space; (ii) the complexity of explaining GAMs varies significantly with the types of component models used -- but interestingly, these differences only emerge under specific input domain settings; (iii) significant complexity distinctions appear for obtaining explanations in regression tasks versus classification tasks in GAMs; and (iv) expressing complex models like neural networks additively (e.g., as neural additive models) can make them easier to explain, though interestingly, this benefit appears only for certain explanation methods and input domains. Collectively, these results shed light on the feasibility of computing diverse explanations for GAMs, offering a rigorous theoretical picture of the conditions under which such computations are possible or provably hard.

Generalized Additive Models (GAMs) are commonly considered *interpretable* within the ML community, as their structure makes the relationship between inputs and outputs relatively understandable. Therefore, it may seem natural to hypothesize that obtaining meaningful explanations for GAMs could be performed efficiently and would not be computationally infeasible. In this work, we challenge this hypothesis by analyzing the *computational complexity* of generating different explanations for various forms of GAMs across multiple contexts. Our analysis reveals a surprisingly diverse landscape of both positive and negative complexity outcomes. Particularly, under standard complexity assumptions such as P$\neq$NP, we establish several key findings: (1) in stark contrast to many other common ML models, the complexity of generating explanations for GAMs is heavily influenced by the structure of the input space; (2) the complexity of explaining GAMs varies significantly with the types of component models used - but interestingly, these differences only emerge under specific input domain settings; (3) significant complexity distinctions appear for obtaining explanations in regression tasks versus classification tasks in GAMs; and (4) expressing complex models like neural networks additively (e.g., as neural additive models) can make them easier to explain, though interestingly, this benefit appears only for certain explanation methods and input domains. Collectively, these results shed light on the feasibility of computing diverse explanations for GAMs, offering a rigorous theoretical picture of the conditions under which such computations are possible or provably hard.

Generalized Additive Models (GAMs) can be used to create non-linear glass-box (i.e. explicitly interpretable) models, where the predictive function is fully observable over the complete input space. However, glass-box interpretability itself does not allow for the incorporation of expert knowledge from the modeller. In this paper, we present ParamBoost, a novel GAM whose shape functions (i.e. mappings from individual input features to the output) are learnt using a Gradient Boosting algorithm that fits cubic polynomial functions at leaf nodes. ParamBoost incorporates several constraints commonly used in parametric analysis to ensure well-refined shape functions. These constraints include: (i) continuity of the shape functions and their derivatives (up to C2); (ii) monotonicity; (iii) convexity; (iv) feature interaction constraints; and (v) model specification constraints. Empirical results show that the unconstrained ParamBoost model consistently outperforms state-of-the-art GAMs across several real-world datasets. We further demonstrate that modellers can selectively impose required constraints at a modest trade-off in predictive performance, allowing the model to be fully tailored to application-specific interpretability and parametric-analysis requirements.

Over the last decades, two distinct approaches have been instrumental to our understanding of the computational complexity of statistical estimation. The statistical physics literature predicts algorithmic hardness through local stability and monotonicity properties of the Franz--Parisi (FP) potential \cite{franz1995recipes,franz1997phase}, while the mathematically rigorous literature characterizes hardness via the limitations of restricted algorithmic classes, most notably low-degree polynomial estimators \cite{hopkins2017efficient}. For many inference models, these two perspectives yield strikingly consistent predictions, giving rise to a long-standing open problem of establishing a precise mathematical relationship between them. In this work, we show that for estimation problems the power of low-degree polynomials is equivalent to the monotonicity of the annealed FP potential for a broad family of Gaussian additive models (GAMs) with signal-to-noise ratio $λ$. In particular, subject to a low-degree conjecture for GAMs, our results imply that the polynomial-time limits of these models are directly implied by the monotonicity of the annealed FP potential, in conceptual agreement with predictions from the physics literature dating back to the 1990s.

It is desirable to restrict the number of components (i.e., encourage sparsity) for

The Rashomon set is the set of models that are approximately as good as the best model in the class. That is, it is the set of all good models.

Please note that an "interaction" in this paper is a statistical interaction that describes a non-additive

Neural Information Processing Systems http://nips.cc/