Learning High Coverage Discriminative Parsimonious Rulesets

Interpretable machine learning is essential in high-stakes domains where decision-making requires accountability, transparency, and trust. While rule-based models offer global and exact interpretability, learning rule sets that simultaneously achieve high predictive performance and low, human-understandable complexity remains challenging. To address this, we introduce TT-Sparse, a flexible neural building block that leverages differentiable truth tables as nodes to learn sparse, effective connections. A key contribution of our approach is a new soft TopK operator with straight-through estimation for learning discrete, cardinality-constrained feature selection in an end-to-end differentiable manner. Crucially, the forward pass remains sparse, enabling efficient computation and exact symbolic rule extraction. As a result, each node (and the entire model) can be transformed exactly into compact, globally interpretable DNF/CNF Boolean formulas via Quine-McCluskey minimization. Extensive empirical results across 28 datasets spanning binary, multiclass, and regression tasks show that the learned sparse rules exhibit superior predictive performance with lower complexity compared to existing state-of-the-art methods.

Interpretable classification often requires more than accurate predictions for real-life deployment: models should be transparent about the evidence behind their decisions and abstain when they cannot decide reliably. We introduce Fast Evidential Rule Learning (FERL), a method that learns interpretable, accurate fuzzy rule models whose outputs are evidential. Unlike post-hoc calibration, FERL's belief, plausibility, and abstention capabilities arise directly from the fuzzy memberships in a single deterministic pass, with no auxiliary head, held-out set, or repeated inference. Our theoretical analysis further shows that FERL is Lipschitz stable, which means that its evidential outputs vary smoothly with the input. Against state-of-the-art rule learners, FERL is statistically significantly more accurate across a 30 tabular-dataset benchmark ($+2.6\%$ average accuracy over the second best). Its native set predictions attain the best utility-discounted accuracy among credal classifiers ($u_{65}/u_{80}=0.80/0.83$ vs.\ $0.79/0.80$ for the naive credal classifier), at higher set coverage ($0.92$ vs.\ $\le0.82$). FERL also matches dedicated out-of-distribution detectors on tabular near-OOD detection ($77.7$ vs.\ $77.4$ AUROC for the strongest baseline). Under detector-class-disjoint concept-bottleneck evaluation, its it is within $2.3$ AUROC points of the strongest dedicated detector on both CUB and AwA2, while attaining the best AwA2 AUPR-Out ($68.3$) and novel-class rejection ($57.2$), while being able to name which attributes are anomalous.

Hybrid interpretable models combine a transparent component with a black-box model by assigning some examples to the former and deferring the rest to the latter. While this design enables flexible tradeoffs between accuracy and interpretability, it also raises a distinct procedural fairness concern: some demographic groups may systematically receive interpretable decisions, while others are disproportionately routed to a black box. We formalize this issue as Interpretability Coverage Disparity (ICD), a demographic-parity-style measure applied to the routing decision of hybrid interpretable models. Using tools from predictive multiplicity, we study ICD across four hybrid interpretable learning methods, three standard fairness benchmark datasets, and multiple sensitive attributes. Our experiments reveal substantial ICD in intermediate transparency regimes, where both the interpretable and black-box components are actively used. We further show that simple coverage-disparity constraints can significantly reduce ICD in exact hybrid learning methods, with marginal impact on accuracy and sparsity. In several settings, ICD mitigation also improves standard algorithmic fairness metrics. These results show that hybrid interpretable models should be audited not only for predictive fairness, but also for how they allocate interpretability across individuals and groups.