Global Interpretability via Automated Preprocessing: A Framework Inspired by Psychiatric Questionnaires

Psychiatry research seeks to understand the manifestations of psychopathology in behavior, as measured in questionnaire data, by identifying a small number of latent factors that explain them. While factor analysis is the canonical tool for this purpose, the resulting factors may not be interpretable, and may also be subject to confounding variables. Moreover, missing data are common, and explicit imputation is often required. To overcome these limitations, we introduce Interpretability Constrained Questionnaire Factorization (ICQF), a non-negative matrix factorization method with regularization tailored for questionnaire data. Our method aims to promote factor interpretability and solution stability. We provide an optimization procedure with theoretical convergence guarantees, and an automated procedure to determine latent dimensionality accurately. We validate these procedures using realistic synthetic data. We demonstrate the effectiveness of our method in a widely used general-purpose questionnaire, in two independent datasets (the Healthy Brain Network and Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development studies). Specifically, we show that ICQF preserves diagnostic information across a range of disorders, outperforming competing methods for smaller dataset sizes, and improves interpretability, as assessed by our clinical research collaborators and co-authors. This suggests that the regularization in our method matches domain characteristics, in addition to satisfying qualitative desiderata.

Nonlinear machine-learning models are increasingly used to discover causal relationships in time-series data, yet the interpretation of their outputs remains poorly understood. In particular, causal scores produced by regularized neural autoregressive models are often treated as analogues of regression coefficients, leading to misleading claims of statistical significance. In this paper, we argue that causal relevance in nonlinear time-series models should be evaluated through forecast necessity rather than coefficient magnitude, and we present a practical evaluation procedure for doing so. We present an interpretable evaluation framework based on systematic edge ablation and forecast comparison, which tests whether a candidate causal relationship is required for accurate prediction. Using Neural Additive Vector Autoregression as a case study model, we apply this framework to a real-world case study of democratic development, modeled as a multivariate time series of panel data - democracy indicators across 139 countries. We show that relationships with similar causal scores can differ dramatically in their predictive necessity due to redundancy, temporal persistence, and regime-specific effects. Our results demonstrate how forecast-necessity testing supports more reliable causal reasoning in applied AI systems and provides practical guidance for interpreting nonlinear time-series models in high-stakes domains.

On biomedical tabular data, flexible models such as deep networks, gradient-boosted trees, and kernel methods are repeatedly matched or beaten by linear and logistic regression given the same features. The usual reaction is to treat this as a model-side shortfall, to be fixed with more data, a better architecture, or tuning, on the assumption that the nonlinear structure is there and the model has failed to capture it. We argue that these fixes cannot help when the binding limit is the measurement rather than the model, as it frequently is in biomedicine. Additive noise blurs the population-optimal predictor, and because blurring removes a function's fine, rapidly varying detail before its broad shape, it erases nonlinear structure faster than linear structure. A degree-$k$ interaction is attenuated by the $k$-th power of feature reliability, while the linear part is attenuated only once. At the reliabilities typical of biomedical measurement, the nonlinear advantage can vanish even when the underlying biology is strongly nonlinear, and what the noise removes cannot be recovered by a larger cohort or a more flexible model, only by better measurement. The nonlinearity is hidden, not absent, and a tie between linear and flexible models is not by itself a verdict on the biology. These pieces are classical, drawn from measurement-error statistics, psychometrics, and Gaussian analysis, and we assemble them into an exact excess-risk identity. Measurement reliability is one of three conditions, alongside sample size and feature representation, that must align for a flexible model to help, and together they leave only a narrow window that most biomedical tasks fall outside. Across 140 UK Biobank tasks, the gap between flexible and linear models, where it exists, carries the predicted noise signature, and the three conditions can be separated by intervention but not by a benchmark alone.