# Complexity-Budgeted, Interaction-Aware Interpretable Model for Tabular Data

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.07060 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2607.07060/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 10 of its 46 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 8 Jul 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 10 of 10)

- [A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1705.07874/) (2017)
- ["Why Should I Trust You?": Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifier](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1602.04938/) (2016)
- [A Survey Of Methods For Explaining Black Box Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1802.01933/) (2018)
- [TabNet: Attentive Interpretable Tabular Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1908.07442/) (2019)
- [Neural Additive Models: Interpretable Machine Learning with Neural Nets](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2004.13912/) (2020)
- [InterpretML: A Unified Framework for Machine Learning Interpretability](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1909.09223/) (2019)
- [The Shapley Taylor Interaction Index](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1902.05622/) (2019)
- [Interpretable classifiers using rules and Bayesian analysis: Building a better stroke prediction model](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1511.01644/) (2015)
- [Supersparse Linear Integer Models for Optimized Medical Scoring Systems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1502.04269/) (2015)
- [How Interpretable and Trustworthy are GAMs?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2006.06466/) (2020)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Inherently interpretable classifiers for tabular data typically rely on sparse features, rules, or patterns that users can inspect directly. The marginal feature-screening step common to these methods can discard variables whose predictive value emerges only through joint configurations with other variables. We present Interaction Aware Interpretable Machine Learning (IAIML), a framework that addresses this limitation through three coordinated mechanisms: adaptive per-feature discretization, finite-grid pairwise interaction scoring, and a partitioned explanation budget. Detected interactions are routed through one of two strategies: relaxing the screening filter so that interaction-supported variables enter the pattern search, or constructing explicit pair terms for a sparse downstream classifier. On a 40-dataset panel comprising 24 real-world tabular benchmarks and 16 synthetic interaction stress tests, evaluated under nested cross-validation, IAIML achieves mean AUC within 1.4 points of tuned gradient-boosted ensembles while requiring roughly 14--28 times fewer fitted explanation components. On datasets with strong pairwise interaction structure and low marginal signal, IAIML outperforms all baselines. Among compact interpretable methods, IAIML is comparable to RuleFit in AUC and component count and is less expensive to tune. EBM obtains a small but significant AUC advantage across the full panel, with a substantially larger lookup-table footprint. Performance degrades on datasets requiring higher-order interactions beyond the pairwise scope. Component-isolated ablations confirm that adaptive discretization and interaction-aware admission each contribute incrementally. These results support IAIML as a compact, interaction-aware framework appropriate for settings where bounded explanation size and controlled treatment of feature interactions are design requirements.