Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash 99 tok/s
Gemini 2.5 Pro 48 tok/s Pro
GPT-5 Medium 40 tok/s
GPT-5 High 38 tok/s Pro
GPT-4o 101 tok/s
GPT OSS 120B 470 tok/s Pro
Kimi K2 161 tok/s Pro
2000 character limit reached

DeepROCK: Error-controlled interaction detection in deep neural networks (2309.15319v1)

Published 26 Sep 2023 in cs.LG and q-bio.QM

Abstract: The complexity of deep neural networks (DNNs) makes them powerful but also makes them challenging to interpret, hindering their applicability in error-intolerant domains. Existing methods attempt to reason about the internal mechanism of DNNs by identifying feature interactions that influence prediction outcomes. However, such methods typically lack a systematic strategy to prioritize interactions while controlling confidence levels, making them difficult to apply in practice for scientific discovery and hypothesis validation. In this paper, we introduce a method, called DeepROCK, to address this limitation by using knockoffs, which are dummy variables that are designed to mimic the dependence structure of a given set of features while being conditionally independent of the response. Together with a novel DNN architecture involving a pairwise-coupling layer, DeepROCK jointly controls the false discovery rate (FDR) and maximizes statistical power. In addition, we identify a challenge in correctly controlling FDR using off-the-shelf feature interaction importance measures. DeepROCK overcomes this challenge by proposing a calibration procedure applied to existing interaction importance measures to make the FDR under control at a target level. Finally, we validate the effectiveness of DeepROCK through extensive experiments on simulated and real datasets.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (55)
  1. Z. Obermeyer and E. J. Emanuel. Predicting the future–big data, machine learning, and clinical medicine. The New England Journal of Medicine, 375(13):1216, 2016.
  2. Z. C. Lipton. The mythos of model interpretability: In machine learning, the concept of interpretability is both important and slippery. Queue, 16(3):31–57, 2018.
  3. Explaining deep neural networks and beyond: A review of methods and applications. Proceedings of the IEEE, 109(3):247–278, 2021.
  4. Deep inside convolutional networks: Visualising image classification models and saliency maps. arXiv preprint arXiv:1312.6034, 2013.
  5. Learning important features through propagating activation differences. In International Conference on Machine Learning, 2017.
  6. A unified approach to interpreting model predictions. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2017.
  7. Axiomatic attribution for deep networks. In International Conference on Machine Learning, 2017.
  8. DANCE: Enhancing saliency maps using decoys. In International Conference on Machine Learning, 2021.
  9. Detecting statistical interactions from neural network weights. International Conference on Learning Representations, 2018.
  10. A wider field of view to predict expression. Nature Methods, 18(10):1155–1156, 2021.
  11. D. S. Watson. Interpretable machine learning for genomics. Human Genetics, 141(9):1499–1513, 2022.
  12. Interpretable artificial intelligence through the lens of feature interaction. arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.03103, 2021.
  13. Interpretation of neural networks is fragile. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 33, pages 3681–3688, 2019.
  14. The (un)reliability of saliency methods. Explainable AI: Interpreting, explaining and visualizing deep learning, pages 267–280, 2019.
  15. ACE: Explaining cluster from an adversarial perspective. In International Conference on Machine Learning, 2021.
  16. Y. Benjamini and Y. Hochberg. Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, 57:289–300, 1995.
  17. Controlling the false discovery rate via knockoffs. The Annals of Statistics, 43(5):2055–2085, 2015.
  18. Panning for gold: Model-X knockoffs for high-dimensional controlled variable selection. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Statistical Methodology), 80(3):551–577, 2018.
  19. DeepPINK: reproducible feature selection in deep neural networks. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2018.
  20. Detecting statistical interactions with additive groves of trees. In International Conference on Machine learning, pages 1000–1007, 2008.
  21. Y. Benjamini and D. Yekutieli. The control of the false discovery rate in multiple testing under dependency. The Annals of Statistics, 29:1165–1188, 2001.
  22. Strong control, conservative point estimation, and simultaneous conservative consistency of false discovery rates: A unified approach. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B, 66:187–205, 2004.
  23. Adapting to unknown sparsity by controlling the false discovery rate. The Annals of Statistics, 34:584–653, 2006.
  24. To how many simultaneous hypothesis tests can normal, student’s t𝑡titalic_t or bootstrap calibration be applied? Journal of the American Statistical Association, 102:1282–1288, 2007.
  25. W. B. Wu. On false discovery control under dependence. The Annals of Statistics, 36:364–380, 2008.
  26. S. Clarke and P. Hall. Robustness of multiple testing procedures against dependence. The Annals of Statistics, 37:332–358, 2009.
  27. P. Hall and Q. Wang. Strong approximations of level exceedences related to multiple hypothesis testing. Bernoulli, 16:418–434, 2010.
  28. Control of the false discovery rate under arbitrary covariance dependence (with discussion). Journal of the American Statistical Association, 107:1019–1045, 2012.
  29. KnockoffGAN: Generating knockoffs for feature selection using generative adversarial networks. In International Conference on Learning Representations, 2018.
  30. Y. Liu and C. Zheng. Auto-encoding knockoff generator for FDR controlled variable selection. arXiv preprint arXiv:1809.10765, 2018.
  31. Deep knockoffs. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 115(532):1861–1872, 2020.
  32. Deep direct likelihood knockoffs. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 33, pages 5036–5046, 2020.
  33. Neural interaction transparency (NIT): Disentangling learned interactions for improved interpretability. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 31, 2018.
  34. GAMI-Net: An explainable neural network based on generalized additive models with structured interactions. Pattern Recognition, 120:108192, 2021.
  35. Learning global pairwise interactions with bayesian neural networks. European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 2020.
  36. Towards interaction detection using topological analysis on neural networks. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2020.
  37. A. Badre and C. Pan. LINA: A linearizing neural network architecture for accurate first-order and second-order interpretations. IEEE Access, 10:36166–36176, 2022.
  38. G. D. Garson. Interpreting neural-network connection weights. AI Expert, 6(4):46–51, 1991.
  39. Recovering pairwise interactions using neural networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1901.08361, 2019.
  40. From local explanations to global understanding with explainable AI for trees. Nature Machine Intelligence, 2(1):56–67, 2020.
  41. How does this interaction affect me? interpretable attribution for feature interactions. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33:6147–6159, 2020.
  42. Explaining explanations: Axiomatic feature interactions for deep networks. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 22:104:1–104:54, 2021.
  43. The shapley taylor interaction index. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 9259–9268. PMLR, 2020.
  44. NODE-GAM: Neural generalized additive model for interpretable deep learning. International Conference on Learning Representations, 2022.
  45. Explaining local, global, and higher-order interactions in deep learning. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 1224–1233, 2021.
  46. Interpreting multivariate shapley interactions in DNNs. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 35, pages 10877–10886, 2021.
  47. Improving performance of deep learning models with axiomatic attribution priors and expected gradients. Nature Machine Intelligence, 3(7):620–631, 2021.
  48. False discovery rate estimation for cross-linked peptides identified by mass spectrometry. Nature Methods, 9(9):901–903, 2012.
  49. Iterative random forests to discover predictive and stable high-order interactions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(8):1943–1948, 2018.
  50. Transcription factors bind thousands of active and inactive regions in the Drosophila blastoderm. PLoS Biology, 6(2):e27, 2008.
  51. TFLink: an integrated gateway to access transcription factor–target gene interactions for multiple species. Database, 2022:baac083, 2022.
  52. Plan and operation of the NHANES I Epidemiologic Followup Study, 1992. 1997.
  53. The blood urea nitrogen/creatinine (BUN/cre) ratio was U-shaped associated with all-cause mortality in general population. Renal Failure, 44(1):184–190, 2022.
  54. Association of serum potassium with all-cause mortality in patients with and without heart failure, chronic kidney disease, and/or diabetes. American Journal of Nephrology, 46(3):213–221, 2017.
  55. Blood urea nitrogen is independently associated with renal outcomes in Japanese patients with stage 3–5 chronic kidney disease: a prospective observational study. BMC Nephrology, 20:1–10, 2019.
List To Do Tasks Checklist Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Collections

Sign up for free to add this paper to one or more collections.

Summary

We haven't generated a summary for this paper yet.

Ai Generate Text Spark Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Paper Prompts

Sign up for free to create and run prompts on this paper using GPT-5.

Dice Question Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Follow-up Questions

We haven't generated follow-up questions for this paper yet.