Abstract: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.

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

### What problem does this paper attempt to solve? This paper aims to explore and solve the interpretability problem of the Logistic Regression (LR) model. Specifically, through user studies, the authors found that even experienced experts have difficulty reliably reproducing the behavior of the trained LR model based on its parameters. This indicates that the existing Logistic Regression model has limitations and is misleading when providing explanations. #### Main problems: 1. **Interpretability problem of the Logistic Regression model**: Although Logistic Regression is one of the simplest and considered interpretable models in AI classification models, its weight interpretation is very complex, especially when extended to Generalised Additive Models (GAMs). 2. **Difficulty for humans to understand and apply model parameters**: Through user studies, the author found that even skilled participants could not reliably reproduce the behavior of small - scale LR models based on the given training parameters. This shows that the current weight interpretation of the Logistic Regression model is not intuitive and easy enough for humans to understand. 3. **Proposing a more interpretable alternative**: To solve these problems, the authors proposed Linearised Additive Models (LAMs), which is an optimal piecewise linear approximation method that can enhance the interpretability of any trained additive model with a sigmoid link function without retraining. ### Main contributions of the paper: 1. **Identifying the interpretability limitations of the Logistic Regression model**: Through specific examples, it is shown that the model explanations provided in the form of log - odds are difficult for humans to understand. 2. **Proposing Linearised Additive Models (LAM)**: It provides an efficient method to convert any trained logical additive model from the log - odds space to a space that directly deals with probabilities without retraining. For the special case of LR, LAM is strictly proven to be the optimal approximation in a large class of possible models. 3. **Performance evaluation**: Through experiments on public financial modeling data sets, it is proved that compared with the logical model, using LAM has only a very small performance loss in classification performance and calibration. 4. **User evaluation**: Through a user study involving 36 participants, it is confirmed that LAM is more interpretable than the logical model, and these results are statistically significant. ### Summary: The core problem of this paper is the insufficient interpretability of the Logistic Regression model and its extensions (such as GAMs) in practical applications, which makes it difficult for humans to accurately understand and apply the outputs of these models. To solve this problem, the authors proposed Linearised Additive Models (LAM) and proved its effectiveness in improving model interpretability through experiments.

Are Logistic Models Really Interpretable?

GAM(L)A: An econometric model for interpretable Machine Learning

Logistic Ensemble Models

Algorithms for interpretable machine learning

Model-Agnostic Interpretability of Machine Learning

Logistic Regression makes small LLMs strong and explainable "tens-of-shot" classifiers

Model Interpretation and Explainability: Towards Creating Transparency in Prediction Models

Methods and Models for Interpretable Linear Classification

GAM(e) changer or not? An evaluation of interpretable machine learning models based on additive model constraints

Model transparency and interpretability: survey and application to the insurance industry

Challenging the Performance-Interpretability Trade-off: An Evaluation of Interpretable Machine Learning Models

Interpretable Learning-to-Rank with Generalized Additive Models

What is Interpretable? Using Machine Learning to Design Interpretable Decision-Support Systems

Learning outside the Black-Box: The pursuit of interpretable models

Supersparse Linear Integer Models for Interpretable Classification

Simple or complex statistical models: Non-traditional regression models with intuitive interpretations

A Double Penalty Model for Interpretability

Interpretability in Safety-Critical FinancialTrading Systems

Interacting Large Language Model Agents. Interpretable Models and Social Learning

Interpretability in deep learning for finance: a case study for the Heston model

Designing Inherently Interpretable Machine Learning Models