Interpretable and Constrained Machine Learning via Combinatorial Optimization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent transformative advances in machine and deep learning have enabled the recognition of complex patterns from vast data, with or without human supervision. These advances have catalyzed the application of machine learning techniques to a diversity of problem settings, from healthcare to robotics. Unfortunately, sophisticated machine learning techniques can result in the construction of domain models that are challenging for humans to understand and in which it is difficult to enforce user-specified constraints. This lack of interpretability, as well as the inability to impose further constraints, has become a major obstacle to human trust in machine learning models and a challenge to the broad adoption of machine learning-based systems. While one of the goals of artificial intelligence is, arguably, to extend its reasoning beyond the cognitive capabilities of humankind, such a pursuit should not disregard human-compatibility. Interpretable machine learning aims to develop human-understandable models and to explain so-called black-box models. Constrained machine learning addresses the problem by enforcing expert knowledge and formal requirements on solutions. In this dissertation we introduce methods to produce machine learning models/artifacts that are interpretable and amenable to human-specified constraints. We do so through the exploitation of techniques for solving combinatorial optimization problems. In particular, we propose novel formulations to learn inherently interpretable models such as decision trees. Our work includes encoding a variety of solution formats and objectives. We further propose frameworks and encodings for the integration of constraints during or after training. We show that our approaches successfully produce high-quality interpretable and constrained solutions in short runtimes, solving new problems and improving the state of the art in others. Our collective work shows that interpretability does not necessarily come at the expense of quality and, in fact, sometimes improves it. Utilizing constraints can also improve accuracy despite reducing the space of feasible solutions. Lastly, we discuss how the work presented in this dissertation can be extended in several interesting directions and inspire new approaches for using combinatorial optimization problems in machine learning.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".