Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 43 references

Learning Predictive Checklists with Probabilistic Logic Programming

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper proposes ProbChecklist, which learns predictive checklists—'at least T of M binary conditions' rules—directly from images, time series, and text by treating the checklist as a probabilistic logic program.

desk verdict Extends checklist learning to images, time series, and text via a differentiable Poisson-binomial objective; the independence assumption is unstated and the fairness framing overreaches, but the core idea is sound and deserves peer review. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.16790 v1 pith:6LO7NGWD submitted 2024-11-25 cs.LG

Yukti Makhija , Edward De Brouwer , Rahul G. Krishnan This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LG
keywords predictivechecklistsprobabilisticlogicprogramminginterpretablemachinelearningconceptclinicaldecisionsupportfairnessmultimodaltrees
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper proposes ProbChecklist, a method for learning predictive checklists—simple decision rules of the form 'at least T of M binary conditions are met'—directly from high-dimensional data such as images, clinical time series, and text. Previous checklist-learning algorithms required Boolean or tabular inputs or hand-crafted summaries; ProbChecklist instead learns soft binary concepts with neural networks and treats the checklist as a probabilistic logic program, so the whole pipeline can be trained by gradient descent. The authors show the method matches or exceeds explainable baselines and approaches deep-model accuracy on MNIST image sequences, sepsis prediction, ICU mortality, and neoplasm detection, and that fairness constraints can shrink error-rate gaps across protected groups. If right, it makes a highly interpretable clinical decision tool applicable to the data modalities actually collected in hospitals.

What carries the argument

The central object is a probabilistic logic program whose logical rule is the checklist: each learned concept is a probabilistic fact, and the query 'at least T concepts are true' is evaluated by Eq. (3), summing over all binary selection vectors. This equation carries the argument because it converts a discrete combinatorial rule into a differentiable probability: under the assumption that concepts are independent Bernoulli variables, the probability of exactly d true concepts is the sum of products ∏ pi[j]^σ(j)(1−pi[j])^(1−σ(j)), and the positive-class probability is the tail sum d≥T. The same logical-rule machinery is reused for decision trees, with branch probabilities expressed as products over node outcomes, and balanced-tree regularizers are added to keep splits informative.

What would settle it

Take a synthetic dataset where concepts are generated with known correlation, such as two concepts that always share the same value, train ProbChecklist, and compare the predicted probability of a positive label on held-out data with the empirical fraction after binarization at τ. If Eq. (3) is at fault, the predicted probability will be misestimated whenever correlated concepts fire together.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the discrete structure of a checklist can be learned end-to-end from arbitrary continuous inputs by reformulating it as a probabilistic logic program. Concept extractors map each modality to probabilities pi[j]=P(concept j true), and the checklist rule 'predict positive if at least T concepts are true' becomes a query whose probability is the sum over all subsets of concepts of size T or more of the product of concept probabilities. This query probability is used in a log-likelihood loss, so gradients flow through the concept extractors; at inference the probabilities are binarized with threshold τ and unused concepts are pruned, yielding a discrete checklist. The paper reports that on MNIST synthetic sequences, PhysioNet sepsis, MIMIC-III mortality, and medical abstracts, ProbChecklist outperforms checklist baselines such as ILP and MIP and is competitive with non-interpretable CNN, LSTM, and BERT models, and that a fairness regularizer substantially reduces ΔFPR and ΔFNR across gender and ethnicity subgroups. It also frames decision trees as logical rules and learns a checklist of decision trees as a proof-of-concept.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the learned binary conditions behave independently when the model combines their probabilities into the chance that at least T are true; if the conditions are actually correlated, the checklist's training probability is misspecified.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If ProbChecklist generalizes as reported, predictive checklists can be trained end-to-end on raw clinical time series and images, removing the need to hand-engineer summary features or solve integer programs.
  • The threshold τ provides an explicit sensitivity-specificity dial after training, so the same learned concepts can be deployed for conservative screening or specific confirmation.
  • Fairness regularization can reduce across-group FPR and FNR gaps, making checklist-based decisions more equitable without abandoning interpretability.
  • Because the same probabilistic-logic machinery learns decision trees and checklists of trees, the approach extends the discrete-model family beyond a single linear checklist.
  • The reported performance on clinical notes suggests text-based checklists can be generated from documentation alone, easing checklist design in data-rich settings.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The independence assumption in Eq. (3) is untested; a direct extension would be to add pairwise correlation terms or a copula to the concept probabilities and check whether calibrated probability improves, since inference would remain a discrete checklist.
  • Because concepts are learned from data, the method can surface candidate clinical findings—such as a rise in heart rate around hours 12–17—that clinicians might not have specified in advance; this hypothesis-generation use is not developed in the paper.
  • A reader could test scalability by replacing the exponential 2^M enumeration with relaxed k-subset sampling; the paper mentions this as a future direction, so it is a natural next step rather than a demonstrated result.
  • The fairness analysis suggests a broader claim: that checklist classifiers, due to their simplicity, allow fairness gaps to be audited item-by-item; the paper does not make this claim explicitly.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes ProbChecklist, a framework for learning predictive checklists from high-dimensional data modalities. For each modality, a neural concept extractor outputs soft concept probabilities; these are passed to a probabilistic logic module that computes the probability that at least T of M concepts fire, yielding a differentiable training objective. At inference, the concept probabilities are thresholded to form a hard checklist. The method is evaluated on a synthetic MNIST checklist task, PhysioNet sepsis prediction (tabular and time series), MIMIC-III mortality prediction, and Medical Abstracts neoplasm detection, with comparisons to ILP/MIP checklist baselines and standard neural baselines. The paper also introduces interpretability regularization, a fairness penalty, and an extension to checklists of decision trees. The central claim is that ProbChecklist is the first approach that learns predictive checklists directly from images, time series, and text while remaining interpretable and competitive with deep classifiers.

Significance. If the result holds, the paper addresses a genuine gap: existing checklist-learning methods are limited to Boolean or tabular inputs, whereas ProbChecklist provides an end-to-end differentiable alternative to integer programming for high-dimensional modalities. The paper has real strengths: it includes a synthetic ground-truth checklist for validation, experiments across images, time series, and text, a fairness analysis, an interpretability study of the learned concepts, and an anonymous code link. The main caveat is that the training probability in Eq. (3) depends on an independence assumption that is not stated; the significance of the empirical results is conditional on that assumption being made explicit and on its robustness being examined. The checklist-of-trees extension is a useful flexibility demonstration, although its experiments are limited to synthetic data.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4.4, Proposition 4.1, Eq. (3)] Equation (3) is exact only under an independence assumption that is never stated: the binary indicators c_i[j] must be conditionally independent given x_i, with margins p_i[j]. The text defines p_i[j] = P(c_i[j] = 1), which gives only marginal probabilities; a joint distribution is needed to compute P(sum_j c_i[j] >= T). If the independence is intended through the probabilistic-logic-programming convention that probabilistic facts are independent, this should be stated explicitly near Eq. (3) and the consequences of correlated concept extractors should be discussed; if it is not intended, Eq. (3) is not the probability of the checklist query. The proof's reference to a 'binomial distribution' is also inaccurate, since the product formula is the Poisson-binomial tail for independent but non-identically distributed Bernoulli variables. Because Eq. (3) defines the training loss, this missing assumption is load-bearing for the claim that the architecture computes the probability of the checklist.
  2. [Section 5.1 and Appendix E.2] The synthetic MNIST experiment is presented as a validation that ProbChecklist recovers a known checklist, but no quantitative recovery result is reported. Table 1 gives accuracy (96.8%) but not the correspondence between the 16 learned concepts (d'_k = 4 per image, T about 8.4) and the four ground-truth item rules (one per image, T = 3). The qualitative gradient analysis in Figure 4b is suggestive, but it does not establish that the learned checklist matches the intended rule set. Please report a recovery measure, such as per-concept rule match rates, the binarized checklist actually deployed, or an alignment score between learned and ground-truth concepts.
  3. [Section 4.5 and Appendix E.8] Training optimizes the soft probability in Eq. (3), while deployment uses hard thresholded concepts c_i[j] = I[p_i[j] > tau], with tau chosen after training and not appearing in the loss. Appendix E.8 documents the resulting gap in 'Model' versus 'Checklist' rows, but the paper does not analyze whether the soft objective is a reliable surrogate for the discrete checklist. Since the central deliverable is the discrete checklist, please either incorporate the binarization into the training objective through a differentiable relaxation, or provide a direct analysis of when the gap is small and how the tau selection procedure affects the final checklist's properties.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Table 1] In the PhysioNet tabular row, the entry '0.815 ± 0.185S' contains a stray 'S', and the row layout makes the values of d'_k, M, and T difficult to parse; please reformat.
  2. [Section 4.7 and Figure 7] The symbol T is used both for the checklist threshold and for the number of trees ('a total of T trees, with tau the checklist thresholding parameter'), redefining a symbol already introduced in Eq. (1); please use a distinct symbol.
  3. [Section 4.7 and Appendix A.4] The depth notation is inconsistent: Eq. (6) says L = 2 but uses two leaf probabilities p[2,1] and p[2,2], whereas Appendix A.4 defines L layers with 2^{L-1} leaf nodes; please align the definitions.
  4. [Abstract and Section 5.1] The abstract and main text refer to 'clinical notes', but the Medical Abstracts TC Corpus consists of medical abstracts; please align the terminology.
  5. [Section 5.1 and Table 1] Several claims of 'significantly improved performance' are made without significance tests, and on the PhysioNet tabular benchmark ProbChecklist's accuracy (62.579 ± 2.58) is not higher than the MIP baseline's (63.688 ± 2.437); please add statistical tests or soften the wording.
  6. [Appendix F.1, Eq. (12)] The denominator '||a_j(x_i)||2,||a_l(x_i)||2' appears malformed and should presumably be the product of the two norms; please fix the typo.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity found: the checklist probability is computed directly from concept probabilities, and empirical validation uses independent external benchmarks.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is self-contained. Equation (3) computes the probability that at least T concepts are true by summing, over all subsets of size d >= T, the product of the individual concept probabilities; this is a direct computation from the model's own probabilistic facts, not an identity with any fitted quantity or with the training labels. The synthetic MNIST checklist is an external ground-truth benchmark constructed independently of the training objective, and the clinical datasets are standard public benchmarks, so the reported evaluations are not derived from the method's inputs. The checklist threshold T and the number of concepts d'_k are explicitly declared hyperparameters, and the binarization threshold tau is tuned on validation data, so no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. Self-citations such as Makhija et al. (2022) and Zhang et al. (2021) are presented as prior checklist-learning baselines that the paper extends, not as load-bearing evidence that forces the proposed method. The independence assumption implicit in the product form of Equation (3) is a potential statistical misspecification concern for correlated concepts, but it is a modeling assumption, not circularity: the derivation does not reduce to its inputs by construction. Appendix L candidly lists limitations such as exponential memory complexity and the difficulty of interpreting learnt concepts, and these do not reveal any circular step. Therefore, no equation or claim in the paper is equivalent to its own inputs by definition, and the appropriate circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's contribution is algorithmic, not physical, so no new entities are invented. The load-bearing assumptions are statistical (concept independence), practical (soft-to-hard binarization), and interpretive (gradient attribution equals meaning). Free parameters are mostly structural hyperparameters tuned on validation, which is standard but means the reported performance is not parameter-free.

free parameters (5)
  • T (checklist threshold) = 3.6 to 9.6 across datasets
    Integer hyperparameter selected on validation data in [M/4, M/2] (Appendix C); it directly defines the final checklist decision rule.
  • d'_k (concepts per modality) = 1 to 6 across experiments
    Number of soft concepts per modality is a hyperparameter chosen by sensitivity analysis on validation data (Appendix C, E.6).
  • tau (binarization threshold) = e.g., 0.5 for MNIST (Table 4)
    Threshold for binarizing concept probabilities at inference, tuned on validation data (Section 4.5, Appendix C).
  • TANGOS regularization weights = lambda_sparsity and lambda_correlation varied, e.g., 10 and 1, or 0.1 and 10
    Interpretability regularization weights are chosen by hand to trade off interpretability and performance (Appendix F.1, F.3).
  • Fairness regularization weight lambda = not specified
    Weight on Delta_FPR plus Delta_FNR in L_Fair; the paper reports no ablation or concrete value.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Concept Bernoulli variables are independent given their probabilities in Eq. (3)
    Proposition 4.1 computes the checklist probability as a product over concepts; no correlation structure is modeled or discussed. This is load-bearing for the likelihood.
  • domain assumption Soft-trained concept probabilities can be binarized at tau with acceptable performance loss
    Section 4.5 and Appendix E.8 show checklist performance is lower than the soft model; the paper assumes a suitable tau exists and is found on validation.
  • domain assumption Gradient attributions and token lists provide meaningful interpretations of learned concepts
    Interpretability claims rely on visual inspection of gradient heatmaps and token frequency lists, not on clinician evaluation or formal semantic validation (Section 5.2, Appendix F).
  • domain assumption Top-10 feature selection using logistic regression weights is leakage-free
    Appendix E.3 and E.4 select features based on logistic regression weights; the paper does not state that selection is nested inside training folds, so test information may influence feature choice.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Learning Predictive Checklists with Probabilistic Logic Programming." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6LO7NGWD

@misc{pith2026241116790,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Learning Predictive Checklists with Probabilistic Logic Programming},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6LO7NGWD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.16790}
}
read the original abstract

Checklists have been widely recognized as effective tools for completing complex tasks in a systematic manner. Although originally intended for use in procedural tasks, their interpretability and ease of use have led to their adoption for predictive tasks as well, including in clinical settings. However, designing checklists can be challenging, often requiring expert knowledge and manual rule design based on available data. Recent work has attempted to address this issue by using machine learning to automatically generate predictive checklists from data, although these approaches have been limited to Boolean data. We propose a novel method for learning predictive checklists from diverse data modalities, such as images and time series. Our approach relies on probabilistic logic programming, a learning paradigm that enables matching the discrete nature of checklist with continuous-valued data. We propose a regularization technique to tradeoff between the information captured in discrete concepts of continuous data and permit a tunable level of interpretability for the learned checklist concepts. We demonstrate that our method outperforms various explainable machine learning techniques on prediction tasks involving image sequences, time series, and clinical notes.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.16790 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Example checklist learnt by our architecture. Three or more checks entail a positive neoplasm prediction. We identify key tokens in clinical notes that correspond to positive and negative concepts, where each concept is characterized by the presence of positive and absence of negative tokens. Our architecture, ProbChecklist, operates by learning binary concepts from high-dimensional inputs, which are then used for e… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overview of our proposed ProbChecklist. Given K data modalities as the input for sample i, we train K concept learners to obtain the vector of probabilistic concepts of each modality p k i ∈ [0, 1]d ′ k . Next, we concatenate into the full concepts probabilities (pi) for sample i. For training the concept learners, we pass pi through the probabilistic logic module. At inference time, we discretize pi through the thr… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Learnt checklist for PhysioNet Sepsis Prediction Task (Tabular). We report the performance result as accuracy (65.69%), precision (0.527), recall (0.755), and specificity (0.6). Mortality prediction using MIMIC mortality time series data. To learn concepts from clinical timeseries, we use K two-layered LSTMs to serve as the concept learners. We highlight our key results in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (11 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Results of ProbChecklist on MNIST Checklist Dataset: (a) Sensitivity Analysis (b) Interpretation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Improvement in fairness metrics across gender and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: We illustrate both the ground truth decision tree and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: We illustrate both the true checklist with M = 3, T= 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: We plot images and corresponding gradient attributions heat maps for seven input samples of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: We plot images and corresponding gradient attributions heat maps for seven input samples of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: We plot time series for Heart Rate and corresponding gradient attributions for nine patients at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: We plot time series for Diastolic Blood Pressure and corresponding gradient attributions for for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: We plot time series for Heart Rate and White Blood Cell Count and corresponding gradient [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Checklists with learnable integer weights [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p033_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: We plot the performance results reported in Table 1. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p033_14.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Interpretable machine learning in healthcare

    Muhammad Aurangzeb Ahmad, Carly Eckert, and Ankur Teredesai. Interpretable machine learning in healthcare. In Proceedings of the 2018 ACM international conference on bioinformatics, computational biology, and health informatics, pp.\ 559--560, 2018

    work page 2018

  2. [2]

    SIMPLE : A gradient estimator for \ k\ -subset sampling

    Kareem Ahmed, Zhe Zeng, Mathias Niepert, and Guy Van den Broeck. SIMPLE : A gradient estimator for \ k\ -subset sampling. In ICML 2023 Workshop on Differentiable Almost Everything: Differentiable Relaxations, Algorithms, Operators, and Simulators, 2023. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=lmYGbAdCLN

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    Publicly available clinical BERT embeddings

    Emily Alsentzer, John Murphy, William Boag, Wei-Hung Weng, Di Jin, Tristan Naumann, and Matthew McDermott. Publicly available clinical BERT embeddings. In Proceedings of the 2nd Clinical Natural Language Processing Workshop, pp.\ 72--78, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA, June 2019. Association for Computational Linguistics. doi:10.18653/v1/W19-1909. URL https:...

    doi:10.18653/v1/w19-1909 2019

  4. [4]

    Explainable artificial intelligence (xai): Concepts, taxonomies, opportunities and challenges toward responsible ai

    Alejandro Barredo Arrieta, Natalia D \' az-Rodr \' guez, Javier Del Ser, Adrien Bennetot, Siham Tabik, Alberto Barbado, Salvador Garc \' a, Sergio Gil-L \'o pez, Daniel Molina, Richard Benjamins, et al. Explainable artificial intelligence (xai): Concepts, taxonomies, opportunities and challenges toward responsible ai. Information fusion, 58: 0 82--115, 2020

    2020

  5. [5]

    Towards Explainable Neural-Symbolic Visual Reasoning

    Adrien Bennetot, Jean-Luc Laurent, Raja Chatila, and Natalia D \' az-Rodr \' guez. Towards explainable neural-symbolic visual reasoning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.09065, 2019

    work page Pith review arXiv 1909

  6. [6]

    The measure and mismeasure of fairness: A critical review of fair machine learning, 2018

    Sam Corbett-Davies and Sharad Goel. The measure and mismeasure of fairness: A critical review of fair machine learning, 2018

    work page 2018

  7. [7]

    The potential for artificial intelligence in healthcare

    Thomas Davenport and Ravi Kalakota. The potential for artificial intelligence in healthcare. Future healthcare journal, 6 0 (2): 0 94, 2019

    work page 2019

  8. [8]

    Predicting the impact of treatments over time with uncertainty aware neural differential equations

    Edward De Brouwer, Javier Gonzalez, and Stephanie Hyland. Predicting the impact of treatments over time with uncertainty aware neural differential equations. In International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, pp.\ 4705--4722. PMLR, 2022

    work page 2022

Show all 43 references
  1. [9]

    Probabilistic (logic) programming concepts

    Luc De Raedt and Angelika Kimmig. Probabilistic (logic) programming concepts. Machine Learning, 100 0 (1): 0 5--47, 2015

    2015

  2. [10]

    Techniques for interpretable machine learning

    Mengnan Du, Ninghao Liu, and Xia Hu. Techniques for interpretable machine learning. Communications of the ACM, 63 0 (1): 0 68--77, 2019

    2019

  3. [11]

    A guide to deep learning in healthcare

    Andre Esteva, Alexandre Robicquet, Bharath Ramsundar, Volodymyr Kuleshov, Mark DePristo, Katherine Chou, Claire Cui, Greg Corrado, Sebastian Thrun, and Jeff Dean. A guide to deep learning in healthcare. Nature medicine, 25 0 (1): 0 24--29, 2019

    2019

  4. [12]

    Robinson, Jad Farha, Amanda Bradke, Sherita H

    Ashraf Fawzy, Tianshi David Wu, Kunbo Wang, Matthew L. Robinson, Jad Farha, Amanda Bradke, Sherita H. Golden, Yanxun Xu, and Brian T. Garibaldi. Racial and Ethnic Discrepancy in Pulse Oximetry and Delayed Identification of Treatment Eligibility Among Patients With COVID-19 . J...

    2022

  5. [13]

    The myth of generalisability in clinical research and machine learning in health care

    Joseph Futoma, Morgan Simons, Trishan Panch, Finale Doshi-Velez, and Leo Anthony Celi. The myth of generalisability in clinical research and machine learning in health care. The Lancet Digital Health, 2 0 (9): 0 e489--e492, 2020

    2020

  6. [14]

    A review of challenges and opportunities in machine learning for health

    Marzyeh Ghassemi, Tristan Naumann, Peter Schulam, Andrew L Beam, Irene Y Chen, and Rajesh Ranganath. A review of challenges and opportunities in machine learning for health. AMIA Summits on Translational Science Proceedings, 2020: 0 191, 2020

    2020

  7. [15]

    Development of medical checklists for improved quality of patient care

    Brigette Hales, Marius Terblanche, Robert Fowler, and William Sibbald. Development of medical checklists for improved quality of patient care . International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 20 0 (1): 0 22--30, 12 2007. ISSN 1353-4505. doi:10.1093/intqhc/mzm062. URL https:/...

    2007 doi

  8. [16]

    Development of medical checklists for improved quality of patient care

    Brigette Hales, Marius Terblanche, Robert Fowler, and William Sibbald. Development of medical checklists for improved quality of patient care. International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 20 0 (1): 0 22--30, 2008

    2008

  9. [17]

    A surgical safety checklist to reduce morbidity and mortality in a global population

    Alex B Haynes, Thomas G Weiser, William R Berry, Stuart R Lipsitz, Abdel-Hadi S Breizat, E Patchen Dellinger, Teodoro Herbosa, Sudhir Joseph, Pascience L Kibatala, Marie Carmela M Lapitan, et al. A surgical safety checklist to reduce morbidity and mortality in a global populat...

    2009

  10. [18]

    TANGOS : Regularizing tabular neural networks through gradient orthogonalization and specialization

    Alan Jeffares, Tennison Liu, Jonathan Crabb \'e , Fergus Imrie, and Mihaela van der Schaar. TANGOS : Regularizing tabular neural networks through gradient orthogonalization and specialization. In The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations, 2023. URL http...

    2023

  11. [19]

    Fair multimodal checklists for interpretable clinical time series prediction

    Qixuan Jin, Haoran Zhang, Thomas Hartvigsen, and Marzyeh Ghassemi. Fair multimodal checklists for interpretable clinical time series prediction. In NeurIPS 2022 Workshop on Learning from Time Series for Health, 2022. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=y4mt_fTy6MY

    2022

  12. [20]

    Johnson, Tom J

    Alistair E.W. Johnson, Tom J. Pollard, Lu Shen, Li-wei H. Lehman, Mengling Feng, Mohammad Ghassemi, Benjamin Moody, Peter Szolovits, Leo Anthony Celi, and Roger G. Mark. Mimic-iii, a freely accessible critical care database. Scientific Data, 3 0 (1), 2016. doi:10.1038/sdata.2016.35

    2016 doi

  13. [21]

    Learning predictive and interpretable timeseries summaries from icu data

    Nari Johnson, Sonali Parbhoo, Andrew Ross, and Finale Doshi velez. Learning predictive and interpretable timeseries summaries from icu data. AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium, 2021: 0 581--590, 02 2022

    2021

  14. [22]

    Concept bottleneck models

    Pang Wei Koh, Thao Nguyen, Yew Siang Tang, Stephen Mussmann, Emma Pierson, Been Kim, and Percy Liang. Concept bottleneck models. 2020

    2020

  15. [23]

    Introduction to statistical relational learning

    Daphne Koller, Nir Friedman, Sa s o D z eroski, Charles Sutton, Andrew McCallum, Avi Pfeffer, Pieter Abbeel, Ming-Fai Wong, Chris Meek, Jennifer Neville, et al. Introduction to statistical relational learning. MIT press, 2007

    2007

  16. [24]

    Bach, and Jure Leskovec

    Himabindu Lakkaraju, Stephen H. Bach, and Jure Leskovec. Interpretable decision sets: A joint framework for description and prediction. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, KDD '16, pp.\ 1675–1684, New York, NY,...

    2016

  17. [25]

    Learning predictive checklists from continuous medical data

    Yukti Makhija, Edward De Brouwer, and Rahul G Krishnan. Learning predictive checklists from continuous medical data. arXiv preprint arXiv:2211.07076, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Deepproblog: Neural probabilistic logic programming

    Robin Manhaeve, Sebastijan Dumancic, Angelika Kimmig, Thomas Demeester, and Luc De Raedt. Deepproblog: Neural probabilistic logic programming. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 31, 2018

    2018

  19. [27]

    Not all neuro-symbolic concepts are created equal: analysis and mitigation of reasoning shortcuts

    Emanuele Marconato, Stefano Teso, Antonio Vergari, and Andrea Passerini. Not all neuro-symbolic concepts are created equal: analysis and mitigation of reasoning shortcuts. In Proceedings of the 37th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, NIPS '23, R...

    2024

  20. [28]

    Definitions, methods, and applications in interpretable machine learning

    W James Murdoch, Chandan Singh, Karl Kumbier, Reza Abbasi-Asl, and Bin Yu. Definitions, methods, and applications in interpretable machine learning. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116 0 (44): 0 22071--22080, 2019

    2019

  21. [29]

    Weakly supervised knowledge transfer with probabilistic logical reasoning for o-object detection

    Martijn Oldenhof, \'A d \'a m Arany, Yves Moreau, and Edward De Brouwer. Weakly supervised knowledge transfer with probabilistic logical reasoning for o-object detection. International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2023

    2023

  22. [30]

    Pytorch: An imperative style, high-performance deep learning library

    Adam Paszke, Sam Gross, Francisco Massa, Adam Lerer, James Bradbury, Gregory Chanan, Trevor Killeen, Zeming Lin, Natalia Gimelshein, Luca Antiga, Alban Desmaison, Andreas Kopf, Edward Yang, Zachary DeVito, Martin Raison, Alykhan Tejani, Sasank Chilamkurthy, Benoit Steiner, Lu ...

    2019

  23. [31]

    A review on fairness in machine learning

    Dana Pessach and Erez Shmueli. A review on fairness in machine learning. ACM Comput. Surv., 55 0 (3), feb 2022. ISSN 0360-0300. doi:10.1145/3494672. URL https://doi.org/10.1145/3494672

    2022 doi

  24. [32]

    Statistical relational artificial intelligence: Logic, probability, and computation

    Luc De Raedt, Kristian Kersting, Sriraam Natarajan, and David Poole. Statistical relational artificial intelligence: Logic, probability, and computation. Synthesis lectures on artificial intelligence and machine learning, 10 0 (2): 0 1--189, 2016

    2016

  25. [33]

    Early prediction of sepsis from clinical data: the physionet/computing in cardiology challenge 2019

    Matthew A Reyna, Chris Josef, Salman Seyedi, Russell Jeter, Supreeth P Shashikumar, M Brandon Westover, Ashish Sharma, Shamim Nemati, and Gari D Clifford. Early prediction of sepsis from clinical data: the physionet/computing in cardiology challenge 2019. In 2019 Computing in ...

    2019

  26. [34]

    End-to-end differentiable proving

    Tim Rockt \"a schel and Sebastian Riedel. End-to-end differentiable proving. Advances in neural information processing systems, 30, 2017

    2017

  27. [35]

    A simple neural network module for relational reasoning

    Adam Santoro, David Raposo, David G Barrett, Mateusz Malinowski, Razvan Pascanu, Peter Battaglia, and Timothy Lillicrap. A simple neural network module for relational reasoning. Advances in neural information processing systems, 30, 2017

    2017

  28. [36]

    Evaluating unsupervised text classification: Zero-shot and similarity-based approaches

    Tim Schopf, Daniel Braun, and Florian Matthes. Evaluating unsupervised text classification: Zero-shot and similarity-based approaches. In Proceedings of the 2022 6th International Conference on Natural Language Processing and Information Retrieval, NLPIR '22, pp.\ 6–15, New Yo...

    2022

  29. [37]

    Li, Rodrigo Toro Icarte, and Sheila A

    Maayan Shvo, Andrew C. Li, Rodrigo Toro Icarte, and Sheila A. McIlraith. Interpretable sequence classification via discrete optimization. In Proceedings of the 35th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI), 2021. URL https://ojs.aaai.org/index.php/AAAI/article/view/17161

    2021

  30. [38]

    Mimic-extract: A data extraction, preprocessing, and representation pipeline for mimic-iii

    Shirly Wang, Matthew BA McDermott, Geeticka Chauhan, Marzyeh Ghassemi, Michael C Hughes, and Tristan Naumann. Mimic-extract: A data extraction, preprocessing, and representation pipeline for mimic-iii. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Health, Inference, and Learning, pp...

    2020

  31. [39]

    A bayesian framework for learning rule sets for interpretable classification

    Tong Wang, Cynthia Rudin, Finale Doshi-Velez, Yimin Liu, Erica Klampfl, and Perry MacNeille. A bayesian framework for learning rule sets for interpretable classification. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 18 0 (70): 0 1--37, 2017. URL http://jmlr.org/papers/v18/16-003.html

    2017

  32. [40]

    Revisiting score function estimators for k -subset sampling, 2024

    Klas Wijk, Ricardo Vinuesa, and Hossein Azizpour. Revisiting score function estimators for k -subset sampling, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.16058

    2024 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Learning optimal predictive checklists

    Haoran Zhang, Quaid Morris, Berk Ustun, and Marzyeh Ghassemi. Learning optimal predictive checklists. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 34: 0 1215--1229, 2021

    2021

  34. [42]

    Interpretable convolutional neural networks

    Quanshi Zhang, Ying Nian Wu, and Song-Chun Zhu. Interpretable convolutional neural networks. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), June 2018

    2018

  35. [43]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 gl...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.