journal article·2025-07-04Open access

Pre Hoc and Co Hoc Explainability: Frameworks for Integrating Interpretability into Machine Learning Training for Enhanced Transparency and Performance

Cagla Acun, Olfa Nasraoui

Applied Sciences· Volume 15· Issue 13

Abstract

Post hoc explanations for black-box machine learning models have been criticized for potentially inaccurate surrogate models and computational burden at prediction time. We propose pre hoc and co hoc explainability frameworks that integrate interpretability directly into the training process through an inherently interpretable white-box model. Pre hoc uses the white-box model to regularize the black-box model, while co hoc jointly optimizes both models with a shared loss function. We extend these frameworks to generate instance-specific explanations using Jensen–Shannon divergence as a regularization term. Our two-phase approach first trains models for fidelity, then generates local explanations through neighborhood-based fine-tuning. Experiments on credit risk scoring and movie recommendation datasets demonstrate superior global and local fidelity compared to LIME, without compromising accuracy. The co hoc framework additionally enhances white-box model accuracy by up to 3%, making it valuable for regulated domains requiring interpretable models. Our approaches provide more faithful and consistent explanations at a lower computational cost than existing methods, offering a promising direction for making machine learning models more transparent and trustworthy while maintaining high prediction accuracy.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) · Adversarial Robustness in Machine Learning · Machine Learning in Healthcare

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

Affiliations

Knowledge Discovery and Web Mining Lab, Department of Computer Science and Engineering, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY 40292, USA

Funding

NSF-EPSCoR–RII Track-1:Kentucky Advanced Manufacturing Partnership for Enhanced Robotics and Structures · NSF DRL-2026584

References (65)

Show source-provided references
1. Alvarez-Melis, D., and Jaakkola, T.S. (2018). On the Robustness of Interpretability Methods. arXiv.
2. Adebayo, J., Gilmer, J., Muelly, M., Goodfellow, I., Hardt, M., and Kim, B. (2020). Sanity Checks for Saliency Maps. arXiv.
3. Ghorbani, A., Abid, A., and Zou, J. (2018). Interpretation of Neural Networks is Fragile. arXiv.
4. Peeking Inside the Black-Box: A Survey on Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)10.1109/ACCESS.2018.2870052 ↗
5. Doshi-Velez, F., and Kim, B. (2017). Towards a Rigorous Science of Interpretable Machine Learning. arXiv.
6. Ribeiro, M.T., Singh, S., and Guestrin, C. (2016, January 13–17). Why should I trust you?: Explaining the predictions of any classifier. Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, San Francisco, CA, USA.10.1145/2939672.2939778 ↗
7. Koh, P.W., and Liang, P. (2017, January 6–11). Understanding black-box predictions via influence functions. Proceedings of the International Conference on Machine Learning, Sydney, Australia.
8. Unmasking Clever Hans predictors and assessing what machines really learn10.1038/s41467-019-08987-4 ↗
9. European union regulations on algorithmic decision-making and a “right to explanation”
10. Why a right to explanation of automated decision-making does not exist in the general data protection regulation10.1093/idpl/ipx005 ↗
11. Dwork, C., Hardt, M., Pitassi, T., Reingold, O., and Zemel, R. (2012, January 8–10). Fairness through awareness. Proceedings of the 3rd Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science Conference, Cambridge, MA, USA.10.1145/2090236.2090255 ↗
12. The intuitive appeal of explainable machines
13. Bansal, G., Wu, T., Zhou, J., Fok, R., Nushi, B., Kamar, E., Ribeiro, M.T., and Weld, D. (February, January 27). Updates in human-ai teams: Understanding and addressing the performance/compatibility tradeoff. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Honolulu, HI, USA.
14. Lage, I., Chen, E., He, J., Narayanan, M., Kim, B., Gershman, S., and Doshi-Velez, F. (2019). An evaluation of the human-interpretability of explanation. arXiv.
15. Guyon, I., Luxburg, U.V., Bengio, S., Wallach, H., Fergus, R., Vishwanathan, S., and Garnett, R. (2017). A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictions. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 30, Curran Associates, Inc.
16. Grad-CAM: Visual Explanations from Deep Networks via Gradient-Based Localization10.1007/s11263-019-01228-7 ↗
17. Bordt, S., Finck, M., Raidl, E., and von Luxburg, U. (2022, January 21–24). Post hoc Explanations Fail to Achieve their Purpose in Adversarial Contexts. Proceedings of the 2022 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, Seoul, Republic of Korea.10.1145/3531146.3533153 ↗
18. Slack, D., Hilgard, S., Jia, E., Singh, S., and Lakkaraju, H. (2020, January 7–8). Fooling LIME and SHAP: Adversarial Attacks on Post Hoc Explanation Methods. Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI, Ethics, and Society, AIES’20, New York, NY, USA.10.1145/3375627.3375830 ↗
19. Alvarez-Melis, D., and Jaakkola, T.S. (2018). Towards Robust Interpretability with Self-Explaining Neural Networks. arXiv.
20. Ghorbani, A., Wexler, J., Zou, J.Y., and Kim, B. (2019). Towards Automatic Concept-based Explanations. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, Curran Associates, Inc.
21. Rudin, C. (2019). Stop Explaining Black Box Machine Learning Models for High Stakes Decisions and Use Interpretable Models Instead. arXiv.10.1038/s42256-019-0048-x ↗
22. Acun, C., and Nasraoui, O. (2023, January 26–29). In-Training Explainability Frameworks: A Method to Make Black-Box Machine Learning Models More Explainable. Proceedings of the 2023 IEEE/WIC International Conference on Web Intelligence and Intelligent Agent Technology (WI-IAT), Venice, Italy.10.1109/WI-IAT59888.2023.00036 ↗
23. Acun, C., Ashary, A., Popa, D.O., and Nasraoui, O. (September, January 28). Enhancing Robotic Grasp Failure Prediction Using A Pre hoc Explainability Framework. Proceedings of the 2024 IEEE 20th International Conference on Automation Science and Engineering (CASE), Bari, Italy.10.1109/CASE59546.2024.10711481 ↗
24. Laugel, T., Lesot, M.J., Marsala, C., Renard, X., and Detyniecki, M. (2019, January 10–16). The Dangers of Post hoc Interpretability: Unjustified Counterfactual Explanations. Proceedings of the Twenty-Eighth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI-19, International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence Organization, Macao, China.10.24963/ijcai.2019/388 ↗
25. Neter, J., Kutner, M.H., Nachtsheim, C.J., and Wasserman, W. (1996). Applied Linear Statistical Models, Irwin.
26. Hosmer, D.W., Lemeshow, S., and Sturdivant, R.X. (2013). Applied Logistic Regression, John Wiley & Sons.10.1002/9781118548387 ↗
27. Induction of decision trees10.1007/BF00116251 ↗
28. Breiman, L., Friedman, J., Olshen, R., and Stone, C. (1984). Classification and Regression Trees, Wadsworth & Brooks/Cole Advanced Books & Software.
29. Abdollahi, B., and Nasraoui, O. (2016, January 11–15). Explainable matrix factorization for collaborative filtering. Proceedings of the 25th International Conference Companion on World Wide Web, Montreal, QC, Canada.10.1145/2872518.2889405 ↗
30. Ras, G., Ambrogioni, L., Haselager, P., van Gerven, M.A.J., and Güçlü, U. (2020). Explainable 3D Convolutional Neural Networks by Learning Temporal Transformations. arXiv.
31. Fauvel, K., Lin, T., Masson, V., Fromont, É., and Termier, A. (2020). XCM: An Explainable Convolutional Neural Network for Multivariate Time Series Classification. arXiv.10.3390/math9233137 ↗
32. Miao, S., Liu, M., and Li, P. (2022). Interpretable and Generalizable Graph Learning via Stochastic Attention Mechanism. arXiv.
33. Regression shrinkage and selection via the lasso10.1111/j.2517-6161.1996.tb02080.x ↗
34. Ridge regression: Biased estimation for nonorthogonal problems10.1080/00401706.1970.10488634 ↗
35. Wu, M., Hughes, M.C., Parbhoo, S., Zazzi, M., Roth, V., and Doshi-Velez, F. (2018, January 2–7). Beyond Sparsity: Tree Regularization of Deep Models for Interpretability. Proceedings of the Thirty-Second AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Thirtieth Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence Conference and Eighth AAAI Symposium on Educational Advances in Artificial Intelligence, AAAI’18/IAAI’18/EAAI’18, New Orleans, LA, USA.10.1609/aaai.v32i1.11501 ↗
36. Lipton, Z.C. (2017). The Mythos of Model Interpretability. arXiv.
37. Chen, J., Song, L., Wainwright, M.J., and Jordan, M.I. (2018). Learning to Explain: An Information-Theoretic Perspective on Model Interpretation. arXiv.
38. Ross, A.S., Hughes, M.C., and Doshi-Velez, F. (2017, January 19–25). Right for the Right Reasons: Training Differentiable Models by Constraining their Explanations. Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI-17, Melbourne, Australia.10.24963/ijcai.2017/371 ↗
39. Lee, G.H., Alvarez-Melis, D., and Jaakkola, T.S. (2018). Game-Theoretic Interpretability for Temporal Modeling. arXiv.
40. Lee, G.H., Jin, W., Alvarez-Melis, D., and Jaakkola, T. (2019, January 9–15). Functional Transparency for Structured Data: A Game-Theoretic Approach. Proceedings of the International Conference on Machine Learning, Long Beach, CA, USA.
41. Regularizing Black-box Models for Improved Interpretability
42. Sarkar, A., Vijaykeerthy, D., Sarkar, A., and Balasubramanian, V.N. (2021). A Framework for Learning Ante hoc Explainable Models via Concepts. arXiv.10.1109/CVPR52688.2022.01004 ↗
43. A survey of methods for explaining black box models10.1145/3236009 ↗
44. Interpretable classifiers using rules and Bayesian analysis: Building a better stroke prediction model10.1214/15-AOAS848 ↗
45. Sundararajan, M., and Najmi, A. (2020). Many shapley values. arXiv.
46. Kim, B., Wattenberg, M., Gilmer, J., Cai, C., Wexler, J., Viegas, F., and Sayres, R. (2018, January 10–15). Interpretability Beyond Feature Attribution: Quantitative Testing with Concept Activation Vectors (TCAV). Proceedings of the International Conference on Machine Learning, Stockholm, Sweden.
47. Prototype selection for interpretable classification10.1214/11-AOAS495 ↗
48. Ribeiro, M.T., Singh, S., and Guestrin, C. (2018, January 2–7). Anchors: High-Precision Model-Agnostic Explanations. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, New Orleans, LA, USA.10.1609/aaai.v32i1.11491 ↗
49. Van Looveren, A., and Klaise, J. (2019, January 16–20). Global aggregations of local explanations for black box models. Proceedings of the ECML PKDD 2019 Workshop on Automating Data Science, Würzburg, Germany.
50. Caruana, R., Lou, Y., Gehrke, J., Koch, P., Sturm, M., and Elhadad, N. (2015, January 10–13). Intelligible models for healthcare: Predicting pneumonia risk and hospital 30-day readmission. Proceedings of the 21th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, Sydney, Australia.10.1145/2783258.2788613 ↗
51. Tonekaboni, S., Joshi, S., McCradden, M.D., and Goldenberg, A. (2019, January 8–10). What clinicians want: Contextualizing explainable machine learning for clinical end use. Proceedings of the Machine Learning for Healthcare Conference, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
52. Bhatt, U., Xiang, A., Sharma, S., Weller, A., Taly, A., Jia, Y., Ghosh, J., Puri, R., Moura, J.M., and Eckersley, P. (2020, January 27–30). Explainable machine learning in deployment. Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, Barcelona, Spain.10.1145/3351095.3375624 ↗
53. Rendle, S. (2010, January 13–17). Factorization Machines. Proceedings of the 2010 IEEE International Conference on Data Mining, ICDM ’10, Sydney, Australia.10.1109/ICDM.2010.127 ↗
54. Lan, L., and Geng, Y. (February, January 27). Accurate and Interpretable Factorization Machines. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Honolulu, HI, USA.
55. Anelli, V.W., Noia, T.D., Sciascio, E.D., Ragone, A., and Trotta, J. (2019). How to Make Latent Factors Interpretable by Feeding Factorization Machines with Knowledge Graphs. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer International Publishing.10.1007/978-3-030-30793-6_3 ↗
56. Xiao, J., Ye, H., He, X., Zhang, H., Wu, F., and Chua, T.S. (2017, January 19–25). Attentional Factorization Machines: Learning the Weight of Feature Interactions via Attention Networks. Proceedings of the 26th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI’17, Melbourne, Australia.10.24963/ijcai.2017/435 ↗
57. The Burbea-Rao and Bhattacharyya Centroids10.1109/TIT.2011.2159046 ↗
58. Information theory and statistics
59. Hinton, G., Vinyals, O., and Dean, J. (2015). Distilling the knowledge in a neural network. arXiv.
60. FICO (2023, December 15). The FICO HELOC Dataset. Available online: https://www.kaggle.com/datasets/averkiyoliabev/home-equity-line-of-creditheloc.
61. GroupLens (2023, December 15). MovieLens 100K Dataset. Available online: https://grouplens.org/datasets/movielens/100k/.
62. GroupLens (2023, December 15). MovieLens 1M Dataset. Available online: https://grouplens.org/datasets/movielens/1M/.
63. An introduction to ROC analysis10.1016/j.patrec.2005.10.010 ↗
64. Paszke, A., Gross, S., Massa, F., Lerer, A., Bradbury, J., Chanan, G., Killeen, T., Lin, Z., Gimelshein, N., and Antiga, L. (2019). PyTorch: An Imperative Style, High-Performance Deep Learning Library. arXiv.
65. Kingma, D.P., and Ba, J. (2017). Adam: A Method for Stochastic Optimization. arXiv.