LiD-GLM: Lipschitz-constrained Deep Generalized Linear Models
Authors: Tom Splittgerber, Niklas Koenen, Marvin N. Wright, Werner Brannath
Organizations: Competence Center for Clinical Trials Bremen, University of Bremen · Leibniz Institute for Prevention Research and Epidemiology – BIPS & University of Bremen
The combination of traditional statistical models and neural network (NN) components into semi-structured hybrid models is an intriguing approach to construct models that, ideally, combine traditional interpretability with the unprecedented flexibility of NNs. In order to preserve interpretability, it is usually necessary to restrict the NN components to prevent them from dominating the model. However, existing methods that enforce structural constraints on their NN components severely limit their models' flexibility; in contrast, methods that only enforce weak, indirect constraints lose meaningful interpretability. The method we propose therefore leverages invertible residual neural networks (i-ResNets) to equip generalized linear models with both nonlinear parameter estimation and a flexible correction of their distributional assumptions while always retaining stochastic monotonicity of the modeled distribution in the (formerly linear) predictor. The i-ResNets correspond to a controlled deviation from identity and by constraining their Lipschitz constant one can rigorously limit and quantify how far the hybrid model deviates from its traditional counterpart. This enables a user-specifiable compromise between flexibility and interpretability without limiting the structure of nonlinear and interaction effects that can be learned. Furthermore, we develop specific inherent interpretation techniques for our model and enforce model identifiability through an adapted post-hoc orthogonalization.
Figures & tables
Figure 2: Heatmaps and contour lines ( P=41,21,43 ) showing learned densities in synthetic binary data example. Shown are 1) the true distribution P[Y=1∣x1,x2]=sigmoid(x1+sin(x1)−x2) , 2) logistic regression, 3+4) LiD-GLM with different bounds for L(νp) and 5) an unconstrained NN.
k
Lpb
∣∣.∣∣q
lr ( 10x )
wid. Tp
dep. Tp
blk. Tp
act. fkt. Tp
β frozen
test NLL
H
0.01- 1.0
1, 2
-5, -3
9,18, 36
1, 2, 3
1,2
GroupSort, ReLU
yes, no
0
0.65
2
−3
9
3
2
GroupSort
yes
0.310
1
0.7
2
−3
36
3
1
GroupSort
no
0.327
2
0.8
1
−3
9
1
1
GroupSort
no
0.520
3
0.7
2
−3
9
2
2
GroupSort
yes
0.406
4
0.9
1
−3
9
3
1
GroupSort
no
0.551
Table 1: Optimal hyperparameters for the “Cars” data found for LiD-GLM without Td on each split k . Hyperparamters were chosen from the range (for Lpb ) and the values given in row H . Listed are the bound Lpb of L(νp) , the used p -norm ( ∣∣.∣∣q ), the learning rate (lr), the width (wid.) and number (dep.) of hidden layers in Tp , number of residual blocks in Tp (blk.), whether or not the linear coefficients β were frozen during training, activation function used (act. fkt.) and test negative loglikelihood (test NLL).
Figure 6: Results for the nested cross validation on the “Cars” data..
Figure 7: PDPs for a LiD-GLM trained on the cars data set. For numeric covariates, a scatterplot shows the training data.
bias
cylinders
horsepower
acceleration
model year
origin 1
origin 2
LM
22.51
-2.46
-3.29
-1.41
2.47
2.13
4.24
LiD-GLM
22.39
-3.0
-2.49
-1.31
2.57
2.77
4.82
R2
-
0.99
0.97
0.99
0.99
0.96
0.94
Table 2: Coefficient table for LiD-GLM trained on the cars data. Shown are the coefficients of the Linear Model and the LiD-GLM (including PHO) and the coefficients of determination R2 .
Figure 9: Results for the nested cross validation on the “Insurance” data..
Figure 10: Distribution correction learned by LiD-GLM on the insurance dataset.
Figure 11: Results for the nested cross validation on the “Stroke” data.
k
Lpb
∣∣.∣∣q
lr ( 10x )
wid. Tp
dep. Tp
blk. Tp
act. fkt. Tp
β frozen
test NLL
H
0.1- 15.0
1,2
-5, -4, -3
18, 36, 48
3, 4, 5, 6
3, 4, 5
ReLU GroupSort
yes, no
0
15.00
2
-3
36
6
5
GroupSort
no
0.162
1
15.00
2
-3
36
6
4
GroupSort
no
0.127
2
13.94
2
-3
48
5
5
GroupSort
no
0.159
3
12.87
2
-3
48
6
4
GroupSort
no
0.146
4
13.94
2
-3
36
5
5
GroupSort
no
0.129
Table 3: Optimal hyperparameters for LiD-GLM found for each split k in the ”Stroke” data example. For a further table description, see Table 1 .
β0
β1
β2
β3
β4
β5
β6
β7
β8
β9
LM
-1.0
-0.41
0.09
1.23
1.13
0.87
0.13
0.42
-0.16
0.13
LiD-GLM
-2.06
-0.54
0.16
1.8
1.64
1.6
0.34
0.61
-0.46
0.09
Ri2
-
0.96
0.99
0.64
0.54
0.79
0.98
0.98
1.0
0.85
Table 4: Coefficient table for LiD-GLM trained on the Stroke data. Shown are the coefficients of the Linear Model and the LiD-GLM (including PHO) and the coefficients of determination R2 for the variables β0 =Intercept, β1 =Sex, β2 =Age, β3 =Hypertension, β4 =Heart disease, β5 =ever married, β6 =Residence type, β7 = Average glucose level, β8 =BMI, β9 =smoking status.
Appendix figures & tables13 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
learning rate
width
depth
width 2
depth 2
number batches
dropout rate
10−4 , 10−310−2 , 10−1
9, 18, 36
2, 3, 4
9, 18, 36
2, 3, 4
1, 10
0, 0.1, 0.2
Appendix
Table 5: Tested hyperparameters for the SDDR model on the “Cars”dataset. Used was a Normal distribution family and a maximum of 3000 epochs.
learning rate
width
depth
width 2
depth 2
number batches
dropout rate
10−4 , 10−310−2 , 10−1
9, 18, 36
2, 3, 4
9, 18, 36
2, 3, 4
1, 10
0, 0.1, 0.2
Appendix
Table 6: Tested hyperparameters for the SDDR model on the “Insurance”dataset. Used was a Normal distribution family and a maximum of 3000 epochs.
learning rate
width
depth
number of batches
10−5 , 10−410−3
8, 16, 32, 64, 100
2, 3, 4 5, 6
1, 10
Appendix
Table 7: Tested hyperparameters for the neural network on the “Stroke”dataset. Used was a maximum of 5000 epochs.
learning rate
width
depth
weight decay
dropout rate
10−4 , 10−310−2
36, 64, 100
3, 4 5, 6
0, 0.01
0, 0.1
Appendix
Table 8: Tested hyperparameters for the SDDR model on the “Stroke”dataset. Used was a Bernoulli family, a maximum of 3000 epochs with a batch size of 3000 with a patience of 200, an output shape of one and zero degrees of freedom.
k
Lpb
wid. Tp
dep. Tp
Ldb
wid. Td
dep. Td
blk. Td
act. Td
Training
test NLL
H
0.01- 1.0
9, 18
2, 3
0.4, 0.6 0.99
4, 8
2, 3
1,2
Swish, ReLU
full, “CW”
0
1.00
9
2
0.99
4
3
1
Swish
full
0.254
1
1.00
9
3
0.99
4
3
2
Swish
full
0.269
2
1.00
9
2
0.99
8
3
2
Swish
full
0.599
3
0.88
9
2
0.40
4
3
2
ReLU
“CW”
0.429
4
1.00
9
2
0.60
4
2
1
Swish
full
0.551
Appendix
Table 9: The best hyperparameters found for LiD-GLM with Td on each split k in the cars data example. Used were ∣∣.∣∣2 , with one residual block and the ReLU activation used for Tp and a learning rate of 10−3 for 3000 epochs with early stopping (patience 200) using the negative loglikelihood loss training either the entire model at once (”full”), or first the mean prediction and then Td (component-wise, ”CW”).
k
∣∣.∣∣q
Lpb
lr ( 10x )
wid. Tp
dep. Tp
blk. Tp
act. Tp
β frozen
test NLL
H
1, 2
0.01- 1.0
-5, -3
9, 18, 36
1, 2, 3
1, 2
GroupSort, ReLU
yes, no
0
1
0.85
−3
18
1
1
ReLU
no
0.446
1
1
0.85
−3
9
1
1
GroupSort
no
0.438
2
2
0.95
−3
9
3
1
GroupSort
no
0.495
3
2
0.90
−3
9
2
1
ReLU
no
0.482
4
2
0.55
−3
9
2
2
GroupSort
no
0.533
Appendix
Table 10: Optimal hyperparameters for the “Insurance” data found for LiD-GLM without Td on each split k . Used were, 3000 epochs with a patience of 200, 1 batch and the negative loglikelihood loss.
k
Lpb
wid. Tp
dep. Tp
Ldb
wid. Td
dep. Td
blk. Td
act. Td
Training
test NLL
H
0.01- 1.0
9, 18
2, 3
0.4, 0.99, 2.99
6, 16
2, 3
1, 2
Swish, ReLU
full, ”CW”
0
0.63
18
2
2.99
6
3
2
Swish
full
-1.184
1
1.0
18
3
2.99
6
3
2
Swish
full
-1.180
2
0.63
9
3
2.99
6
3
2
Swish
full
-0.865
3
0.88
9
3
2.99
16
3
2
Swish
full
-1.224
4
0.63
9
2
2.99
6
3
2
Swish
full
-0.672
Appendix
Table 11: The best hyperparameters found for LiD-GLM with Td on each split k in the “Insurance” data example. Used were ∣∣.∣∣2 , lr = 10−3 , 3000 epochs with a patience of 200 and 1 batch, 1 residual block in Tp and the ReLU activation in Tp . After initialization, either all parameters were given to the optimizer at once (”full”), or first β and Tp and afterwards Td were trained (component-wise, ”CW”).
Variable
GLM
LiD-GLM
R2
bias
-1.23
-1.45
-
age
0.31
0.31
0.97
sex
0.00
0.01
1.00
bmi
0.03
0.03
1.00
children
0.05
0.05
1.00
smoker
1.95
1.82
0.92
Appendix
Table 12: Coefficient table for LiD-GLM trained on the Stroke data. Shown are the coefficients of the Linear Model and the LiD-GLM (including PHO) and the coefficients of determination R2 for the variables β0 =Intercept, β1 =Sex, β2 =Age, β3 =Hypertension, β4 =Heart disease, β5 =ever married, β6 =Residence type, β7 = Average glucose level, β8 =BMI, β9 =smoking status.
β0
β1
β2
β3
β4
β5
β6
β7
β8
β9
LM
-1.0
-0.41
0.09
1.23
1.13
0.87
0.13
0.42
-0.16
0.13
LiD-GLM
-7.83
-1.38
0.25
4.09
3.76
5.33
1.32
1.28
-1.6
-0.19
Ri2
-
0.96
0.99
0.52
0.09
0.93
0.98
0.99
1.0
0.86
Appendix
Table 13: Coefficient table for LiD-GLM trained on the Stroke data. Shown are the coefficients of the Linear Model and the LiD-GLM (including PHO) and the coefficients of determination R2 for the variables β0 =Intercept, β1 =Sex, β2 =Age, β3 =Hypertension, β4 =Heart disease, β5 =ever married, β6 =Residence type, β7 = Average glucose level, β8 =BMI, β9 =smoking status.
Figure 18: Fluctuation in LiD-GLM estimation of β on all splits on the cars dataset with Td with and without PHO.
Figure 19: Fluctuation in LiD-GLM estimation of β on all splits on the cars dataset without Td with and without PHO.
Figure 20: Fluctuation in LiD-GLM estimation of β on all splits on the insurance dataset with Td with and without PHO.
Figure 21: Fluctuation in LiD-GLM estimation of β on all splits on the insurance dataset without Td with and without PHO.
We formally introduce a class of models inspired by renormalization group (RG) theory, built on additive hierarchical expansions analogous to those appearing in functional ANOVA and mixed-effects models. Like ReLU convolutional neural networks, they are almost everywhere locally linear; unlike ReLU networks, their partition structure is explicit, interpretable, and easy to modify or constrain. In these models, one defines a multidimensional lattice partition of the input space and uses it to scaffold variations in regression parameters. Each dimension of the lattice corresponds to an attribute by which the statistics of the problem may vary. The parameters are themselves expressed in the form of an expansion, where each term captures variations relative to a lower (coarser) interaction scale. These models admit multiple equivalent interpretations: as piecewise GLMs, as hierarchical mixed-effects regressions, or as regression trees with structured parameter sharing. Since RG motivates the design of these models, we use techniques from statistical physics -- specifically replica analysis -- to study their generalization properties. Specifically, we analyze the behavior of the Watanabe-Akaike Information Criterion (WAIC) as a proxy for generalization loss. This analysis yields two practical results: (i) guidance on the lattice design as a function of dataset size and predictor dimensionality; and (ii) a principled scaling law for the regularization prior when adding higher-order terms to the expansion so that one can increase model complexity without an expected increase in generalization loss. We evaluate the methodology on public datasets and find performance competitive against both blackbox methods and other intrinsically interpretable approaches.
Joshua C. Chang
NIH Clinical Center, Rehabilitation Medicine · Mederrata Research Inc · Sound Prediction Inc
Interpretable Mesomorphic Neural Networks (IMNs) offer a promising framework that combines the predictive power of deep neural networks with the interpretability of linear models. However, the original formulation lacks safeguards to ensure that the learned interpretations are in fact reliable. In particular, the network is free to concentrate all explanatory variance into a single weight of the linear output layer, achieving strong predictive performance while producing interpretations that are largely meaningless. Paradoxically, the L1 penalty proposed to encourage sparse solutions exacerbates this problem by further incentivizing such degenerate configurations. To address this vulnerability, we introduce Local Fidelity Regularization (LFR), a novel penalty term that prevents degenerate weight collapse by aligning the linear output weights with local data variations. This structural constraint guarantees faithful explanations and substantially improves the reliability of model interpretations. Furthermore, empirical evaluations across the OpenML benchmark suite demonstrate that LFR does not compromise accuracy for explainability; rather, it achieved improved AUROC over the unregularized IMN. By yielding results highly competitive with state-of-the-art black-box models, LFR provides the dual benefit of reliable interpretability and superior predictive performance. Source code and usage instructions are available at https://github.com/hugohammer/LFR-IMN.git.
Hugo L. Hammer, Vajira Thambawita, Kristoffer Herland Hellton +1
1Oslo Metropolitan University (OsloMet) · 2Simula Metropolitan Center for Digital Engineering (SimulaMet)
Generalized linear mixed-effects models (GLMMs) are widely used to analyze grouped and hierarchical data. In a GLMM, each response is assumed to follow an exponential-family distribution where the natural parameter is given by a linear function of observed covariates and a latent group-specific random effect. Since exact marginalization over the random effects is typically intractable, model parameters are estimated by maximizing an approximate marginal likelihood. In this paper, we replace the linear function with neural networks. The result is a more flexible model, the neural generalized mixed-effects model (NGMM), which captures complex relationships between covariates and responses. To fit NGMM to data, we introduce an efficient optimization procedure that maximizes the approximate marginal likelihood and is differentiable with respect to network parameters. We show that the approximation error of our objective decays at a Gaussian-tail rate in a user-chosen parameter. On synthetic data, NGMM improves over GLMMs when covariate-response relationships are nonlinear, and on real-world datasets it outperforms prior methods. Finally, we analyze a large dataset of student proficiency to demonstrate how NGMM can be extended to more complex latent-variable models.
Yuli Slavutsky, Sebastian Salazar, David M. Blei
Department of Statistics, Columbia University, New York, USA · Department of Computer Science, Columbia University, New York, USA