Predictive models are increasingly embedded in operational decision-making, yet standard explanation methods typically explain forecasts rather than the decisions those forecasts induce. This distinction is important in predict-then-optimize systems: large forecast changes may leave the optimizer's action unchanged, while small changes can alter the selected decision and its realized value. We propose Decision Value Attribution (DVA), a Shapley-based framework for attributing the value of a fixed prediction--optimization pipeline. The framework defines cooperative games whose payoff is the downstream decision value, allowing the players to be information sources, optimization or design parameters, or both. We present three variants: InfoDVA attributes value to features, DesignDVA attributes value to operational configurations, and Decision-Value Interactions (DVI) quantifies how information and design jointly create value. We further distinguish post-DVA, which evaluates decisions using realized outcomes, from pre-DVA, which evaluates decisions under the model's full prediction. This separation turns attribution into a decision-level diagnostic of whether the model's operational beliefs align with realized performance. The resulting attributions are expressed in the units of the operational objective and decompose the gain or loss relative to a baseline. Case studies in electricity storage arbitrage and emergency medical service coverage show that predictive explanations can be poor proxies for operational value, that DVA can guide targeted information-control interventions, and that optimization configurations determine when predictive information is decision-relevant.

Tree ensembles have demonstrated state-of-the-art predictive performance across a wide range of problems involving tabular data. Nevertheless, the black-box nature of tree ensembles is a strong limitation, especially for applications with critical decisions at stake. The Hoeffding or ANOVA functional decomposition is a powerful explainability method, as it breaks down black-box models into a unique sum of lower-dimensional functions, provided that input variables are independent. In standard learning settings, input variables are often dependent, and the Hoeffding decomposition is generalized through hierarchical orthogonality constraints. Such generalization leads to unique and sparse decompositions with well-defined main effects and interactions. However, the practical estimation of this decomposition from a data sample is still an open problem. Therefore, we introduce the TreeHFD algorithm to estimate the Hoeffding decomposition of a tree ensemble from a data sample. We show the convergence of TreeHFD, along with the main properties of orthogonality, sparsity, and causal variable selection.

The functional ANOVA, or Hoeffding decomposition, provides a principled framework for interpretability by decomposing a model prediction into main effects and higher-order interactions. For independent inputs, this classical decomposition is explicit. It is closely connected to SHAP values, generalized additive models, and orthogonal polynomial expansions, and therefore constitutes a fundamental tool for additive explainability. In the more general and realistic dependent setting, however, obtaining a tractable representation and estimating the decomposition from data remain challenging. In this work, we address this problem for continuous inputs. By combining Hilbert space methods with the generalized functional ANOVA, we build an explicit decomposition Riesz Basis allowing to easily compute the decomposition. Our formulation recovers the classical independent case and its associated orthogonal decomposition. Building on this representation, we propose a simple but mighty algorithm to estimate the decomposition from a data sample in a model-agnostic setting and we compare it empirically with several state-of-the-art explanation methods, demonstrating the power of the approach.

Deep learning has achieved remarkable success across domains such as vision, language, and science. A widely believed explanation for this success is representation learning -- also called feature learning -- the empirically observed ability of deep models to automatically extract task-relevant features from raw data, without manual engineering, to support downstream prediction [1]. This ability is generally attributed to two fundamental ingredients of deep models: (i) their compositional architecture and (ii) the use of optimization. The compositionality of the architecture endows the model with the ability to form intermediate representations of the data via composition of simple transformations. These representations are not manually defined but are learned from data by optimizing a loss function designed to minimize prediction error. However, despite the empirical success of this paradigm, our theoretical understanding of how and why such representations emerge remains fundamentally limited. In particular, it remains unclear how the interplay between compositional structure and optimization gives rise to task-aligned features -- and under what conditions this mechanism succeeds or fails. To address this gap, we study a stylized compositional model that preserves these two core ingredients of feature learning -- while remaining simple enough to enable analysis of how features are learnt during training.

Tree ensembles have demonstrated state-of-the-art predictive performance across a wide range of problems involving tabular data. Nevertheless, the black-box nature of tree ensembles is a strong limitation, especially for applications with critical decisions at stake. The Hoeffding or ANOVA functional decomposition is a powerful explainability method, as it breaks down black-box models into a unique sum of lower-dimensional functions, provided that input variables are independent. In standard learning settings, input variables are often dependent, and the Hoeffding decomposition is generalized through hierarchical orthogonality constraints. Such generalization leads to unique and sparse decompositions with well-defined main effects and interactions. However, the practical estimation of this decomposition from a data sample is still an open problem. Therefore, we introduce the TreeHFD algorithm to estimate the Hoeffding decomposition of a tree ensemble from a data sample. We show the convergence of TreeHFD, along with the main properties of orthogonality, sparsity, and causal variable selection. The high performance of TreeHFD is demonstrated through experiments on both simulated and real data, using our treehfd Python package (https://github.com/ThalesGroup/treehfd). Besides, we empirically show that the widely used TreeSHAP method, based on Shapley values, is strongly connected to the Hoeffding decomposition.

Discrete optimization-based jailbreaking attacks on large language models aim to generate short, nonsensical suffixes that, when appended onto input prompts, elicit disallowed content. Notably, these suffixes are often transferable -- succeeding on prompts and models for which they were never optimized. And yet, despite the fact that transferability is surprising and empirically well-established, the field lacks a rigorous analysis of when and why transfer occurs. To fill this gap, we identify three statistical properties that strongly correlate with transfer success across numerous experimental settings: (1) how much a prompt without a suffix activates a model's internal refusal direction, (2) how strongly a suffix induces a push away from this direction, and (3) how large these shifts are in directions orthogonal to refusal. On the other hand, we find that prompt semantic similarity only weakly correlates with transfer success. These findings lead to a more fine-grained understanding of transferability, which we use in interventional experiments to showcase how our statistical analysis can translate into practical improvements in attack success.

Consider two sets of entities and their members' mutual affinity values, say drug-target affinities (DTA). Drugs and targets are said to interact in their effects on DTAs if drug's effect on it depends on the target. Presence of interaction implies that assigning a drug to a target and another drug to another target does not provide the same aggregate DTA as the reversed assignment would provide. Accordingly, correctly capturing interactions enables better decision-making, for example, in allocation of limited numbers of drug doses to their best matching targets. Learning to predict DTAs is popularly done from either solely from known DTAs or together with side information on the entities, such as chemical structures of drugs and targets. In this paper, we introduce interaction directions' prediction performance estimator we call interaction concordance index (IC-index), for both fixed predictors and machine learning algorithms aimed for inferring them. IC-index complements the popularly used DTA prediction performance estimators by evaluating the ratio of correctly predicted directions of interaction effects in data. First, we show the invariance of IC-index on predictors unable to capture interactions. Secondly, we show that learning algorithm's permutation equivariance regarding drug and target identities implies its inability to capture interactions when either drug, target or both are unseen during training. In practical applications, this equivariance is remedied via incorporation of appropriate side information on drugs and targets. We make a comprehensive empirical evaluation over several biomedical interaction data sets with various state-of-the-art machine learning algorithms. The experiments demonstrate how different types of affinity strength prediction methods perform in terms of IC-index complementing existing prediction performance estimators.

Algorithm 1: The proposed Persistence Interaction Detection (PID) algorithmInput: A trained feed-forward neural network, target layer l, norm p. Output: ranked list of interaction candidates {I Our PID framework is presented in Algorithm 1. PID in all experiments of this paper (i.e., set η as 0). In this subsection, we will prove Theorem 1 and evaluate it empirically. We have the following corollary: Corollary 1. |b Combining them together finishes the proof. It is trivial to show that Corollary 1 can be extended to the death time, i.e., we also have After proving Corollary 1, we return to prove the theorem. In this section, first, we show how to extend PID to CNNs.