Deep neural networks (DNNs) are powerful black-box predictors that have achieved impressive performance on a wide variety of tasks. However, their accuracy comes at the cost of intelligibility: it is usually unclear how they make their decisions. This hinders their applicability to high stakes decision-making domains such as healthcare. We propose Neural Additive Models (NAMs) which combine some of the expressivity of DNNs with the inherent intelligibility of generalized additive models. NAMs learn a linear combination of neural networks that each attend to a single input feature.

However, NAMs (likeallGAMs), are not causal models.

Generalized additive models (GAMs) have long been a powerful white-box tool for the intelligible analysis of tabular data, revealing the influence of each feature on the model predictions. Despite the success of neural networks (NNs) in various domains, their application as NN-based GAMs in tabular data analysis remains suboptimal compared to tree-based ones, and the opacity of encoders in NN-GAMs also prevents users from understanding how networks learn the functions. In this work, we propose a new deep tabular learning method, termed Prototypical Neural Additive Model (ProtoNAM), which introduces prototypes into neural networks in the framework of GAMs. With the introduced prototype-based feature activation, ProtoNAM can flexibly model the irregular mapping from tabular features to the outputs while maintaining the explainability of the final prediction. We also propose a gradient-boosting inspired hierarchical shape function modeling method, facilitating the discovery of complex feature patterns and bringing transparency into the learning process of each network layer. Our empirical evaluations demonstrate that ProtoNAM outperforms all existing NN-based GAMs, while providing additional insights into the shape function learned for each feature. The source code of ProtoNAM is available at \url{https://github.com/Teddy-XiongGZ/ProtoNAM}.

Generalized Additive Models (GAMs) offer a balance between performance and interpretability in machine learning. The interpretability aspect of GAMs is expressed through shape plots, representing the model's decision-making process. However, the visual properties of these plots, e.g. number of kinks (number of local maxima and minima), can impact their complexity and the cognitive load imposed on the viewer, compromising interpretability. Our study, including 57 participants, investigates the relationship between the visual properties of GAM shape plots and cognitive load they induce. We quantify various visual properties of shape plots and evaluate their alignment with participants' perceived cognitive load, based on 144 plots. Our results indicate that the number of kinks metric is the most effective, explaining 86.4% of the variance in users' ratings. We develop a simple model based on number of kinks that provides a practical tool for predicting cognitive load, enabling the assessment of one aspect of GAM interpretability without direct user involvement.

Machine learning is permeating every conceivable domain to promote data-driven decision support. The focus is often on advanced black-box models due to their assumed performance advantages, whereas interpretable models are often associated with inferior predictive qualities. More recently, however, a new generation of generalized additive models (GAMs) has been proposed that offer promising properties for capturing complex, non-linear patterns while remaining fully interpretable. To uncover the merits and limitations of these models, this study examines the predictive performance of seven different GAMs in comparison to seven commonly used machine learning models based on a collection of twenty tabular benchmark datasets. To ensure a fair and robust model comparison, an extensive hyperparameter search combined with cross-validation was performed, resulting in 68,500 model runs. In addition, this study qualitatively examines the visual output of the models to assess their level of interpretability. Based on these results, the paper dispels the misconception that only black-box models can achieve high accuracy by demonstrating that there is no strict trade-off between predictive performance and model interpretability for tabular data. Furthermore, the paper discusses the importance of GAMs as powerful interpretable models for the field of information systems and derives implications for future work from a socio-technical perspective.

Deep neural networks (DNNs) are powerful black-box predictors that have achieved impressive performance on a wide variety of tasks. However, their accuracy comes at the cost of intelligibility: it is usually unclear how they make their decisions. This hinders their applicability to high stakes decision-making domains such as healthcare. We propose Neural Additive Models (NAMs) which combine some of the expressivity of DNNs with the inherent intelligibility of generalized additive models. NAMs learn a linear combination of neural networks that each attend to a single input feature. These networks are trained jointly and can learn arbitrarily complex relationships between their input feature and the output. Our experiments on regression and classification datasets show that NAMs are more accurate than widely used intelligible models such as logistic regression and shallow decision trees. They perform similarly to existing state-of-the-art generalized additive models in accuracy, but are more flexible because they are based on neural nets instead of boosted trees. To demonstrate this, we show how NAMs can be used for multitask learning on synthetic data and on the COMPAS recidivism data due to their composability, and demonstrate that the differentiability of NAMs allows them to train more complex interpretable models for COVID-19.

Generalized additive models (GAMs) have become a leading model class for data bias discovery and model auditing. However, there are a variety of algorithms for training GAMs, and these do not always learn the same things. Statisticians originally used splines to train GAMs, but more recently GAMs are being trained with boosted decision trees. It is unclear which GAM model(s) to believe, particularly when their explanations are contradictory. In this paper, we investigate a variety of different GAM algorithms both qualitatively and quantitatively on real and simulated datasets. Our results suggest that inductive bias plays a crucial role in model explanations and tree-based GAMs are to be recommended for the kinds of problems and dataset sizes we worked with.