The demand for open and trustworthy AI models points towards widespread publishing of model weights. Consumers of these model weights must be able to act accordingly with the information provided. That said, one of the simplest AI classification models, Logistic Regression (LR), has an unwieldy interpretation of its model weights, with greater difficulties when extending LR to generalised additive models. In this work, we show via a User Study that skilled participants are unable to reliably reproduce the action of small LR models given the trained parameters. As an antidote to this, we define Linearised Additive Models (LAMs), an optimal piecewise linear approximation that augments any trained additive model equipped with a sigmoid link function, requiring no retraining. We argue that LAMs are more interpretable than logistic models -- survey participants are shown to solve model reasoning tasks with LAMs much more accurately than with LR given the same information. Furthermore, we show that LAMs do not suffer from large performance penalties in terms of ROC-AUC and calibration with respect to their logistic counterparts on a broad suite of public financial modelling data.

We introduce a family of interpretable machine learning models, with two broad additions: Linearised Additive Models (LAMs) which replace the ubiquitous logistic link function in General Additive Models (GAMs); and SubscaleHedge, an expert advice algorithm for combining base models trained on subsets of features called subscales. LAMs can augment any additive binary classification model equipped with a sigmoid link function. Moreover, they afford direct global and local attributions of additive components to the model output in probability space. We argue that LAMs and SubscaleHedge improve the interpretability of their base algorithms. Using rigorous null-hypothesis significance testing on a broad suite of financial modelling data, we show that our algorithms do not suffer from large performance penalties in terms of ROC-AUC and calibration.

In recent years, bankruptcy forecasting has gained lot of attention from researchers as well as practitioners in the field of financial risk management. For bankruptcy prediction, various approaches proposed in the past and currently in practice relies on accounting ratios and using statistical modeling or machine learning methods. These models have had varying degrees of successes. Models such as Linear Discriminant Analysis or Artificial Neural Network employ discriminative classification techniques. They lack explicit provision to include prior expert knowledge. In this paper, we propose another route of generative modeling using Expert Bayesian framework. The biggest advantage of the proposed framework is an explicit inclusion of expert judgment in the modeling process. Also the proposed methodology provides a way to quantify uncertainty in prediction. As a result the model built using Bayesian framework is highly flexible, interpretable and intuitive in nature. The proposed approach is well suited for highly regulated or safety critical applications such as in finance or in medical diagnosis. In such cases accuracy in the prediction is not the only concern for decision makers. Decision makers and other stakeholders are also interested in uncertainty in the prediction as well as interpretability of the model. We empirically demonstrate these benefits of proposed framework on real world dataset using Stan, a probabilistic programming language. We found that the proposed model is either comparable or superior to the other existing methods. Also resulting model has much less False Positive Rate compared to many existing state of the art methods. The corresponding R code for the experiments is available at Github repository.