A Theory of Interpretable Approximations
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Can a deep neural network be approximated by a small decision tree based on simple features? This question and its variants are behind the growing demand for machine learning models that are *interpretable* by humans. In this work we study such questions by introducing *interpretable approximations*, a notion that captures the idea of approximating a target concept c by a small aggregation of concepts from some base class H. In particular, we consider the approximation of a binary concept c by decision trees based on a simple class H (e.g., of bounded VC dimension), and use the tree depth as a measure of complexity. Our primary contribution is the following remarkable trichotomy. For any given pair of H and c, exactly one of these cases holds: (i) c cannot be approximated by H with arbitrary accuracy; (ii) c can be approximated by H with arbitrary accuracy, but there exists no universal rate that bounds the complexity of the approximations as a function of the accuracy; or (iii) there exists a constant kappa that depends only on H and c such that, for *any* data distribution and *any* desired accuracy level, c can be approximated by H with a complexity not exceeding kappa. This taxonomy stands in stark contrast to the landscape of supervised classification, which offers a complex array of distribution-free and universally learnable scenarios. We show that, in the case of interpretable approximations, even a slightly nontrivial a-priori guarantee on the complexity of approximations implies approximations with constant (distribution-free and accuracy-free) complexity. We extend our trichotomy to classes H of unbounded VC dimension and give characterizations of interpretability based on the algebra generated by H.
Key facts. Cited by 7 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 15 of its 33 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 15 Jun 2024.
Builds on
15 of 33 references.
References · 15
- 2016"Why Should I Trust You?": Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifiercited by 5,070
- 2018All Models are Wrong, but Many are Useful: Learning a Variable's Importance by Studying an Entire Class of Prediction Models Simultaneouslycited by 373
- 2018Interpreting CNNs via Decision Treescited by 89
- 2020Explaining the Explainer: A First Theoretical Analysis of LIMEcited by 89
- 2020Explainable k-Means and k-Medians Clusteringcited by 67
- 2020A Theory of Universal Learningcited by 60
- 2015Sample compression schemes for VC classescited by 47
- 2017Interpretability via Model Extractioncited by 40
- 2020Born-Again Tree Ensemblescited by 38
- 2019Universal Bayes consistency in metric spacescited by 33
- 2021Provably efficient, succinct, and precise explanationscited by 32
- 2020Enforcing Interpretability and its Statistical Impacts: Trade-offs between Accuracy and Interpretabilitycited by 25
3 more
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2025: 5; 2026: 2.
7 papers.
- 2025Informative Post-Hoc Explanations Only Exist for Simple Functionscited by 2
- 2026Hessian-Enhanced Token Attribution (HETA): Interpreting Autoregressive LLMscited by 2
- 2025How to safely discard features based on aggregate SHAP valuescited by 1
- 2025A Classification View on Meta Learning Banditscited by 1
- 2025Feature Attribution from First Principlescited by 1
- 2025Controlled Model Debiasing through Minimal and Interpretable Updatescited by 0
- 2026Fundamental Limitation in Explaining AIcited by 0
- 2026Fundamental Limitation in Explaining AI23 May 2026
- 2026Hessian-Enhanced Token Attribution (HETA): Interpreting Autoregressive LLMs14 Apr 2026
- 2025Informative Post-Hoc Explanations Only Exist for Simple Functions15 Aug 2025
- 2025Feature Attribution from First Principles30 May 2025
- 2025A Classification View on Meta Learning Bandits6 Apr 2025
- 2025How to safely discard features based on aggregate SHAP values29 Mar 2025
- 2025Controlled Model Debiasing through Minimal and Interpretable Updates28 Feb 2025