On the Effectiveness of Interpretable Feedforward Neural Network
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Deep learning models have achieved state-of-the-art performance in many classification tasks. However, most of them cannot provide an explanation for their classification results. Machine learning models that are interpretable are usually linear or piecewise linear and yield inferior performance. Non-linear models achieve much better classification performance, but it is usually hard to explain their classification results. As a counter-example, an interpretable feedforward neural network (IFFNN) is proposed to achieve both high classification performance and interpretability for malware detection. If the IFFNN can perform well in a more flexible and general form for other classification tasks while providing meaningful explanations, it may be of great interest to the applied machine learning community. In this paper, we propose a way to generalize the interpretable feedforward neural network to multi-class classification scenarios and any type of feedforward neural networks, and evaluate its classification performance and interpretability on interpretable datasets. We conclude by finding that the generalized IFFNNs achieve comparable classification performance to their normal feedforward neural network counterparts and provide meaningful explanations. Thus, this kind of neural network architecture has great practical use.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".