The DOI matches its Crossref record; 12 of the 12 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Challenging the Performance-Interpretability Trade-Off: An Evaluation of Interpretable Machine Learning Models
Abstract
Machine learning is permeating every conceivable domain to promote data-driven decision support. The focus is often on advanced black-box models due to their assumed performance advantages, whereas interpretable models are often associated with inferior predictive qualities. More recently, however, a new generation of generalized additive models (GAMs) has been proposed that offer promising properties for capturing complex, non-linear patterns while remaining fully interpretable. To uncover the merits and limitations of these models, the study examines the predictive performance of seven different GAMs in comparison to seven commonly used machine learning models based on a collection of twenty tabular benchmark datasets. To ensure a fair and robust model comparison, an extensive hyperparameter search combined with cross-validation was performed, resulting in 68,500 model runs. In addition, this study qualitatively examines the visual output of the models to assess their level of interpretability. Based on these results, the paper dispels the misconception that only black-box models can achieve high accuracy by demonstrating that there is no strict trade-off between predictive performance and model interpretability for tabular data. Furthermore, the paper discusses the importance of GAMs as powerful interpretable models for the field of information systems and derives implications for future work from a socio-technical perspective.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Generalized Additive Models: An Introduction with R
Wood, S. N. (2017) · doi:10.1201/9781315370279 · Cited by 13,852
Rudin, C. (2019) · Nature Machine Intelligence · doi:10.1038/s42256-019-0048-x · Cited by 10,561
From local explanations to global understanding with explainable AI for trees
Lundberg, S. M., Erion, G., Chen, H., DeGrave, A., Prutkin, J. M., Nair, B., Katz, R., Himmelfarb, J., Bansal, N., & Lee, S.-I. (2020) · Nature Machine Intelligence · doi:10.1038/s42256-019-0138-9 · Cited by 10,551
Barredo Arrieta, A., Díaz-Rodríguez, N., Del Ser, J., Bennetot, A., Tabik, S., Barbado, A., Garcia, S., Gil-Lopez, S., Molina, D., Benjamins, R., et al. (2020) · Information Fusion · doi:10.1016/j.inffus.2019.12.012 · Cited by 10,423
Intelligible Models for HealthCare: Predicting Pneumonia Risk and Hospital 30-day Readmission
Caruana, R., Lou, Y., Gehrke, J., Koch, P., Sturm, M., & Elhadad, N. (2015) · Proceedings of the 21th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining · doi:10.1145/2783258.2788613 · Cited by 1,685
Accurate intelligible models with pairwise interactions
Lou, Y., Caruana, R., Gehrke, J., & Hooker, G. (2013) · Proceedings of the 19th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining · doi:10.1145/2487575.2487579 · Cited by 564
Intelligible models for classification and regression
Lou, Y., Caruana, R., & Gehrke, J. (2012) · Proceedings of the 18th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining · doi:10.1145/2339530.2339556 · Cited by 547
Rudin, C., & Radin, J. (2019) · Harvard Data Science Review · doi:10.1162/99608f92.5a8a3a3d · Cited by 432
Senoner, J., Netland, T., & Feuerriegel, S. (2022) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.2021.4190 · Cited by 317
Designing a feature selection method based on explainable artificial intelligence
Zacharias, J., von Zahn, M., Chen, J., & Hinz, O. (2022) · Electronic Markets · doi:10.1007/s12525-022-00608-1 · Cited by 109
Research works printed but not linked: 55
- Agarwal R, Melnick L, Frosst N, Zhang X, Lengerich B, Caruana R, Hinton GE (2021) Neural additive models: interpretable machine learning with neural nets. In: Advances in neural information processing systems, pp 4699–4711
- Arik SO, Pfister T (2021) TabNet: attentive interpretable tabular learning. Proc AAAI Conf Artif Intell 35(8):6679–6687. https://doi.org/10.1609/aaai.v35i8.16826 · DOI
- Babic B, Gerke S, Evgeniou T, Cohen IG (2021) Beware explanations from AI in health care. Science 373(6552):284–286. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abg1834 · DOI · Paper page
- Balster A, Hansen O, Friedrich H, Ludwig A (2020) An ETA prediction model for intermodal transport networks based on machine learning. Bus Inf Syst Eng 62(5):403–416. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-020-00653-0 · DOI
- Bauer K, Hinz O, van der Aalst W, Weinhardt C (2021) Expl(AI)n it to me -- explainable AI and information systems research. Bus Inf Syst Eng 63(2):79–82. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-021-00683-2 · DOI
- Bauer K, von Zahn M, Hinz O (2023) Expl(AI)ned: the impact of explainable artificial intelligence on users’ information processing. Inf Syst Res. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.2023.1199 · DOI
- Brasse J, Broder HR, Förster M, Klier M, Sigler I (2023) Explainable artificial intelligence in information systems: a review of the status quo and future research directions. Electron Market. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525-023-00644-5 · DOI
- Brazdil PB, Soares C (2000) A comparison of ranking methods for classification algorithm selection. In: Carbonell JG, Siekmann J, Goos G, Hartmanis J, Van Leeuwen J, López De Mántaras R, Plaza E (eds) Machine learning: ECML 2000, vol 1810. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 63–75. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45164-1_8 · DOI
- Chang CH, Tan S, Lengerich B, Goldenberg A, Caruana R (2021) How interpretable and trustworthy are GAMs? In: Proceedings of the 27th ACM SIGKDD conference on knowledge discovery & data mining, ACM, virtual event Singapore, pp 95–105. https://doi.org/10.1145/3447548.3467453 · DOI · Paper page
- Chen T, Guestrin C (2016) XGBoost: a scalable tree boosting system. In: Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, KDD ’16, pp 785–794. https://doi.org/10.1145/2939672.2939785 · DOI · Paper page
- Cortez P, Silva A (2008) Using data mining to predict secondary school student performance. In: Proceedings of 5th FUture BUsiness TEChnology Conference (FUBUTEC 2008), EUROSIS, Porto, Portugal, p 8
- Cortez P, Cerdeira A, Almeida F, Matos T, Reis J (2009) Modeling wine preferences by data mining from physicochemical properties. Decis Support Syst 47(4):547–553. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2009.05.016 · DOI · Paper page
- De Bock KW, De Caigny A (2021) Spline-rule ensemble classifiers with structured sparsity regularization for interpretable customer churn modeling. Decis Support Syst 150(113):523. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2021.113523 · DOI
- De Bock KW, Coussement K, Van den Poel D (2010) Ensemble classification based on generalized additive models. Comput Stat Data Anal 54(6):1535–1546. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csda.2009.12.013 · DOI
- De Caigny A, Coussement K, De Bock KW (2018) A new hybrid classification algorithm for customer churn prediction based on logistic regression and decision trees. Eur J Oper Res 269(2):760–772. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2018.02.009 · DOI
- De Caigny A, De Bock KW, Verboven S (2024) Hybrid black-box classification for customer churn prediction with segmented interpretability analysis. Decis Support Syst 181(114):217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2024.114217 · DOI
- Demšar J (2006) Statistical comparisons of classifiers over multiple data sets. J Mach Learn Res 7:1–30
- Doshi-Velez F, Kim B (2017) Towards a rigorous science of interpretable machine learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1702.08608 · arXiv
- Du M, Liu N, Hu X (2019) Techniques for interpretable machine learning. Commun ACM 63(1):68–77. https://doi.org/10.1145/3359786 · DOI · Paper page
- Eilers PHC, Marx BD (1996) Flexible smoothing with B-splines and penalties. Stat Sci. https://doi.org/10.1214/ss/1038425655 · DOI
- Fanaee-T H, Gama J (2014) Event labeling combining ensemble detectors and background knowledge. Prog Artif Intell 2(2):113–127. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13748-013-0040-3 · DOI
- Friedman JH, Stuetzle W (1981) Projection pursuit regression. J Am Stat Assoc 76(376):817–823. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1981.10477729 · DOI
- Ghavamipoor H, Hashemi Golpayegani SA (2020) A reinforcement learning based model for adaptive service quality management in e-commerce websites. Bus Inf Syst Eng 62(2):159–177. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-019-00583-6 · DOI
- Gunning D, Aha D (2019) DARPA’s explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) program. AI Mag 40(2):44–58. https://doi.org/10.1609/aimag.v40i2.2850 · DOI · Paper page
- Hastie T, Tibshirani R (1986) Generalized additive models. Stat Sci. https://doi.org/10.1214/ss/1177013604 · DOI
- Hohman F, Head A, Caruana R, DeLine R, Drucker SM (2019) Gamut: a design probe to understand how data scientists understand machine learning models. In: Proceedings of the 2019 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems, ACM, Glasgow, pp 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300809 · DOI
- Imran AA, Amin MN, Rifat MRI, Mehreen S (2019) Deep neural network approach for predicting the productivity of garment employees. In: (2019) 6th international conference on control, decision and information technologies (CoDIT). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/codit.2019.8820486 · DOI
- Janiesch C, Zschech P, Heinrich K (2021) Machine learning and deep learning. Electron Market 31(3):685–695. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525-021-00475-2 · DOI · Paper page
- Kaur H, Nori H, Jenkins S, Caruana R, Wallach H, Wortman Vaughan J (2020) Interpreting interpretability: understanding data scientists’ use of interpretability tools for machine learning. In: Proceedings of the 2020 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM, Honolulu HI USA, pp 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376219 · DOI · Paper page
- Kibler D, Aha DW, Albert MK (1989) Instance-based prediction of real-valued attributes. Comput Intell 5(2):51–57. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8640.1989.tb00315.x · DOI
- Kohavi R (1996) Scaling up the accuracy of Naive-Bayes classifiers: a decision-tree hybrid. In: Proceedings of the second international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining. AAAI Press, KDD’96, pp 202–207
- Kratsch W, Manderscheid J, Röglinger M, Seyfried J (2021) Machine learning in business process monitoring: a comparison of deep learning and classical approaches used for outcome prediction. Bus Inf Syst Eng 63(3):261–276. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-020-00645-0 · DOI
- Krippendorff K (2018) Content analysis: an introduction to its methodology. Sage, Thousand Oaks
- Kühl N, Hirt R, Baier L, Schmitz B, Satzger G (2021) How to conduct rigorous supervised machine learning in information systems research: the supervised machine learning report card. Commun Assoc Inf Syst 48(1):589–615. https://doi.org/10.17705/1CAIS.04845 · DOI
- Landwehr JP, Kühl N, Walk J, Gnädig M (2022) Design knowledge for deep-learning-enabled image-based decision support systems: evidence from power line maintenance decision-making. Bus Inf Syst Eng 64(6):707–728. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-022-00745-z · DOI
- Lantz B (2015) Machine learning with R: learn how to use R to apply powerful machine learning methods and gain an insight into real-world applications. Packt Publ, Birmingham
- Moro S, Cortez P, Rita P (2014) A data-driven approach to predict the success of bank telemarketing. Decis Support Syst 62:22–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2014.03.001 · DOI
- Nori H, Jenkins S, Koch P, Caruana R (2019) InterpretML: a unified framework for machine learning interpretability. arXiv:1909.09223 [cs, stat] · arXiv
- Oberdorf F, Schaschek M, Weinzierl S, Stein N, Matzner M, Flath CM (2022) Predictive end-to-end enterprise process network monitoring. Bus Inf Syst Eng. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-022-00778-4 · DOI
- Pace KR, Barry R (1997) Sparse spatial autoregressions. Stat Probab Lett 33(3):291–297. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-7152(96)00140-X · DOI
- Prokhorenkova L, Gusev G, Vorobev A, Dorogush AV, Gulin A (2018) CatBoost: unbiased boosting with categorical features. In: Proceedings of the 32nd international conference on neural information processing systems, vol 31. Curran Associates, Inc., Montréal, Canada
- Redmond M, Baveja A (2002) A data-driven software tool for enabling cooperative information sharing among police departments. Eur J Oper Res 141(3):660–678. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(01)00264-8 · DOI
- Ribeiro MT, Singh S, Guestrin C (2016) "Why should I trust you?": explaining the predictions of any classifier. In: Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining -- KDD ’16. ACM Press, San Francisco, pp 1135–1144. https://doi.org/10.1145/2939672.2939778 · DOI · Paper page
- Roy A, Qureshi S, Pande K, Nair D, Gairola K, Jain P, Singh S, Sharma K, Jagadale A, Lin YY, Sharma S, Gotety R, Zhang Y, Tang J, Mehta T, Sindhanuru H, Okafor N, Das S, Gopal CN, Rudraraju SB, Kakarlapudi AV (2019) Performance comparison of machine learning platforms. INFORMS J Comput 31(2):207–225. https://doi.org/10.1287/ijoc.2018.0825 · DOI
- Schoormann T, Strobel G, Möller F, Petrik D, Zschech P (2023) Artificial intelligence for sustainability -- a systematic review of information systems literature. Commun Assoc Inf Syst. https://doi.org/10.17705/1CAIS.05209 · DOI
- Sidhu GS (2021) Crab age prediction. https://doi.org/10.34740/KAGGLE/DSV/2834512. https://www.kaggle.com/dsv/2834512. Accessed 20 Oct 2024 · DOI
- Sudjianto A, Zhang A (2021) Designing inherently interpretable machine learning models. arXiv:2111.01743 [cs, stat] · arXiv
- Sudjianto A, Knauth W, Singh R, Yang Z, Zhang A (2020) Unwrapping the black box of deep ReLU networks: interpretability, diagnostics, and simplification. arXiv:2011.04041 [cs, stat] · arXiv
- Thiebes S, Lins S, Sunyaev A (2021) Trustworthy artificial intelligence. Electron Market 31(2):447–464. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525-020-00441-4 · DOI · Paper page
- Vaughan J, Sudjianto A, Brahimi E, Chen J, Nair VN (2018) Explainable neural networks based on additive index models. arXiv:1806.01933 [cs, stat] · arXiv
- Wanner J, Herm LV, Heinrich K, Janiesch C, Zschech P (2020) White, grey, black: effects of XAI augmentation on the confidence in AI-based decision support systems. In: Proceedings of the 41st international conference on information systems (ICIS)
- Wood SN (2003) Thin plate regression splines. J R Stat Soc Ser B Stat Methodol 65(1):95–114. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9868.00374 · DOI
- Yang Z, Zhang A, Sudjianto A (2021b) GAMI-Net: an explainable neural network based on generalized additive models with structured interactions. Pattern Recognit 120(108):192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patcog.2021.108192 · DOI
- Zschech P, Heinrich K, Bink R, Neufeld JS (2019) Prognostic model development with missing labels: a condition-based maintenance approach using machine learning. Bus Inf Syst Eng 61(3):327–343. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-019-00596-1 · DOI
- Zschech P, Weinzierl S, Hambauer N, Zilker S, Kraus M (2022) GAM(e) change or not? An evaluation of interpretable machine learning models based on additive model constraints. In: Proceedings of the 30th European conference on information systems (ECIS)
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Bohlen, L., Rosenberger, J., Hambauer, N., Zähringer, D., Franz, V., Zschech, P., & Kraus, M. (2026) · Health Care Management Science · doi:10.1007/s10729-026-09760-y
“While most research focuses on the trade-off between interpretability and performance when choosing between constraining complexity and using post-hoc explana - tions [62, 70 ], we additionally consider the complexity– generalizability trade-off.”
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Kruschel, S., Hambauer, N., Weinzierl, S., Zilker, S., Kraus, M., & Zschech, P.
- Venue
- Business & Information Systems Engineering
- Published
- 2025-02-13
- Volume
- 68
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 159-183
- ISSN
- 2363-7005
- 1867-0202
- Cited by
- 50
- References
- 12
- Language
- en
- Funders
- Universität Leipzig
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Challenging the Performance-Interpretability Trade-Off: An Evaluation of Interpretable Machine Learning Models. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1007/s12599-024-00922-2
- The paper
- Kruschel, S., Hambauer, N., Weinzierl, S., Zilker, S., Kraus, M., & Zschech, P. (2026). Challenging the Performance-Interpretability Trade-Off: An Evaluation of Interpretable Machine Learning Models. Business & Information Systems Engineering. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-024-00922-2