Symbolic Representation of Neural Networks

Neural networks often surpass decision trees in predicting pattern classifications, but their predictions cannot be explained. This algorithm's symbolic representations make each prediction explicit and understandable. Our approach to understanding a neural network uses symbolic rules to represent the network decision process. The algorithm, NeuroRule, extracts these rules from a neural network. The network can be interpreted by the rules which, in general, preserve network accuracy and explain the prediction process. We based NeuroRule on a standard three layer feed forward network. NeuroRule consists of four phases. First, it builds a weight decay backpropagation network so that weights reflect the importance of the network's connections. Second, it prunes the network to remove irrelevant connections and units while maintaining the network's predictive accuracy. Third, it discretizes the hidden unit activation values by clustering. Finally, it extracts rules from the network with discretized hidden unit activation values.

[1]  Douglas H. Fisher,et al.  An Empirical Comparison of ID3 and Back-propagation , 1989, IJCAI.

[2]  Randy Kerber,et al.  ChiMerge: Discretization of Numeric Attributes , 1992, AAAI.

[3]  Jude W. Shavlik,et al.  Training Knowledge-Based Neural Networks to Recognize Genes , 1990, NIPS.

[4]  Murray Smith,et al.  Neural Networks for Statistical Modeling , 1993 .

[5]  J. Shavlik,et al.  The Extraction of Reened Rules from Knowledge-based Neural Networks , 1993 .

[6]  Rudy Setiono,et al.  A Penalty-Function Approach for Pruning Feedforward Neural Networks , 1997, Neural Computation.

[7]  LiMin Fu,et al.  Neural networks in computer intelligence , 1994 .

[8]  J. Shavlik,et al.  Extracting Reened Rules from Knowledge-based Neural Networks Keywords: Theory Reenement Integrated Learning Representational Shift Rule Extraction from Neural Networks , 1992 .

[9]  R. Nakano,et al.  Medical diagnostic expert system based on PDP model , 1988, IEEE 1988 International Conference on Neural Networks.

[10]  Babak Hassibi,et al.  Second Order Derivatives for Network Pruning: Optimal Brain Surgeon , 1992, NIPS.

[11]  Sholom M. Weiss,et al.  An Empirical Comparison of Pattern Recognition, Neural Nets, and Machine Learning Classification Methods , 1989, IJCAI.

[12]  J. R. Quinlan,et al.  Comparing connectionist and symbolic learning methods , 1994, COLT 1994.

[13]  Carla E. Brodley,et al.  An Incremental Method for Finding Multivariate Splits for Decision Trees , 1990, ML.

[14]  Aiko M. Hormann,et al.  Programs for Machine Learning. Part I , 1962, Inf. Control..

[15]  J. Ross Quinlan,et al.  C4.5: Programs for Machine Learning , 1992 .

[16]  Jie Cheng,et al.  Improved Decision Trees: A Generalized Version of ID3 , 1988, ML.

[17]  R. Fisher THE USE OF MULTIPLE MEASUREMENTS IN TAXONOMIC PROBLEMS , 1936 .

[18]  Thomas G. Dietterich,et al.  A Comparative Study of ID3 and Backpropagation for English Text-to-Speech Mapping , 1990, ML.