Cited by 106Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)Neural Networks and ApplicationsStochastic Gradient Optimization Techniques

Enhancing Explainability of Neural Networks Through Architecture Constraints

Open access
Yang, Zebin, Zhang, Aijun, Sudjianto, Agus·2021·IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems

Abstract

Prediction accuracy and model explainability are the two most important objectives when developing machine learning algorithms to solve real-world problems. Neural networks are known to possess good prediction performance but suffer from a lack of model interpretability. In this article, we propose to enhance the explainability of neural networks through the following architecture constraints: 1) sparse additive subnetworks; 2) projection pursuit with orthogonality constraint; and 3) smooth function approximation. It leads to an enhanced explainable neural network (ExNN) with a superior balance between prediction performance and model interpretability. We derive sufficient identifiability conditions for the proposed ExNN model. The multiple parameters are simultaneously estimated by a modified minibatch gradient descent method based on the backpropagation algorithm for calculating the derivatives and the Cayley transform for preserving the projection orthogonality. Through simulation study under six different scenarios, we compare the proposed method to several benchmarks, including least absolute shrinkage and selection operator, support vector machine, random forest, extreme learning machine, and multilayer perceptron. It is shown that the proposed ExNN model keeps the flexibility of pursuing high prediction accuracy while attaining improved interpretability. Finally, a real data example is employed as a showcase application.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/tnnls.2020.3007259

Cites

35 of 35 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In tightly controlled domains such as IoT systems, avionics, finance, banking, autonomous systems, and medical services, integrating AI and its interoperability with legacy applications is much more onerous.

    “However, in tightly controlled domains like IoT systems, avionics, finance, banking, autonomous systems, and medical services, integrating AI and its interoperability with legacy applications is much more onerous [27], [47].”

    From A Review of Trustworthy and Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) (2023) · cites this paper as [47]

    The Introduction (p. 2) says that limited interpretability can restrict neural-network applications in medicine and finance, and discusses credit scoring in banking. It does not address interoperability with legacy applications or the claimed integration difficulty across IoT, avionics, and autonomous systems. (LLM, conf=0.80)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Black-box models may still make poor predictions even in the absence of adversarial attacks due to significant biases and prejudices in the training set.

    “Leading to significant biases and prejudices in the training set, black-box models may still make poor predictions even in the absence of adversarial attacks [28], [46], [47].”

    From A Review of Trustworthy and Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) (2023) · cites this paper as [47]

    The Introduction (p. 2) discusses black-box models’ limited interpretability and generally strong predictive performance, but not poor predictions caused by biased training data. Searches for training-set bias, prejudice, and adversarial attacks found no passage addressing the attributed claim. (LLM, conf=0.72)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 37 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Yang, Z., Zhang, A., & Sudjianto, A.
Affiliations
  • University of Hong Kong (HK)
  • Wells Fargo (United States) (US)
Venue
IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems
Published
2021-06
Volume
32
Issue
6
Pages
2610-2621
ISSN
  • 2162-237X (ISSN-L)
  • 2162-2388
OpenAlex
W3045825034
Cited by
106
References
37
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 22 · 2020: 9
FWCI
6.68
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
Big Data Project Fund of The University of Hong Kong through Dr. Patrick Poon’s Donation
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Neural Networks and Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Stochastic Gradient Optimization Techniques
Keywords
explainable neural networks, projection pursuit, orthogonality constraints, smooth function approximation, identifiability conditions, Cayley transform, backpropagation, model interpretability, prediction accuracy

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