mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Drop Clause: Enhancing Performance, Interpretability and Robustness of the Tsetlin Machine

arXiv 2105.14506 ↗First posted 30 May 2021cs.LG cs.AI cs.NEcited by 7

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

In this article, we introduce a novel variant of the Tsetlin machine (TM) that randomly drops clauses, the key learning elements of a TM. In effect, TM with drop clause ignores a random selection of the clauses in each epoch, selected according to a predefined probability. In this way, additional stochasticity is introduced in the learning phase of TM. To explore the effects drop clause has on accuracy, training time, interpretability and robustness, we conduct extensive experiments on nine benchmark datasets in natural language processing~(NLP) (IMDb, R8, R52, MR and TREC) and image classification (MNIST, Fashion MNIST, CIFAR-10 and CIFAR-100). Our proposed model outperforms baseline machine learning algorithms by a wide margin and achieves competitive performance in comparison with recent deep learning model such as BERT and AlexNET-DFA. In brief, we observe up to +10% increase in accuracy and 2x to 4x faster learning compared with standard TM. We further employ the Convolutional TM to document interpretable results on the CIFAR datasets, visualizing how the heatmaps produced by the TM become more interpretable with drop clause. We also evaluate how drop clause affects learning robustness by introducing corruptions and alterations in the image/language test data. Our results show that drop clause makes TM more robust towards such changes.

Key facts. Cited by 7 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 24 of its 43 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 30 May 2021.

Builds on

24 of 43 references.

References · 24

  1. 2016Grad-CAM: Visual Explanations from Deep Networks via Gradient-based Localizationcited by 6,733
  2. 2013Deep Inside Convolutional Networks: Visualising Image Classification Models and Saliency Mapscited by 2,371
  3. 2018Deep contextualized word representationscited by 2,290
  4. 2014Convolutional Neural Networks for Sentence Classificationcited by 1,127
  5. 2019Attention is not Explanationcited by 929
  6. 2017Network Dissection: Quantifying Interpretability of Deep Visual Representationscited by 708
  7. 2017Interpretation of Neural Networks is Fragilecited by 444
  8. 2019Is Attention Interpretable?cited by 389
  9. 2018An Intriguing Failing of Convolutional Neural Networks and the CoordConv Solutioncited by 307
  10. 2019InterpretML: A Unified Framework for Machine Learning Interpretabilitycited by 246
  11. 2013Maxout Networkscited by 187
  12. 2017Interpretable Convolutional Neural Networkscited by 162
12 more
  1. 2019MNIST-C: A Robustness Benchmark for Computer Visioncited by 138
  2. 2015PTE: Predictive Text Embedding through Large-scale Heterogeneous Text Networkscited by 96
  3. 2017Verifying Properties of Binarized Deep Neural Networkscited by 79
  4. 2018The Tsetlin Machine -- A Game Theoretic Bandit Driven Approach to Optimal Pattern Recognition with Propositional Logiccited by 72
  5. 2019The Convolutional Tsetlin Machinecited by 37
  6. 2020Efficient Exact Verification of Binarized Neural Networkscited by 33
  7. 2018Using the Tsetlin Machine to Learn Human-Interpretable Rules for High-Accuracy Text Categorization with Medical Applicationscited by 24
  8. 2020On the Convergence of Tsetlin Machines for the IDENTITY- and NOT Operatorscited by 23
  9. 2020Extending the Tsetlin Machine With Integer-Weighted Clauses for Increased Interpretabilitycited by 16
  10. 2021On the Convergence of Tsetlin Machines for the XOR Operatorcited by 16
  11. 2021Low-Power Audio Keyword Spotting using Tsetlin Machinescited by 11
  12. 2017Patchnet: Interpretable Neural Networks for Image Classificationcited by 4

Built on by

Cited by year

Citing papers per year: 2022: 2; 2023: 2; 2024: 3.

7 papers.