You will be presented with the title and body text of a computer science research paper. Please write a summary of the work that would be informative for a peer reviewer assessing its quality. Your summary should be 6 sentences long. In your response, include only the summary and no additional text.

Paper title:
NBDT: Neural-Backed Decision Tree

Paper body:
1 INTRODUCTION . Many computer vision applications ( e.g . medical imaging and autonomous driving ) require insight into the model ’ s decision process , complicating applications of deep learning which are traditionally black box . Recent efforts in explainable computer vision attempt to address this need and can be grouped into one of two categories : ( 1 ) saliency maps and ( 2 ) sequential decision processes . Saliency maps retroactively explain model predictions by identifying which pixels most affected the prediction . However , by focusing on the input , saliency maps fail to capture the model ’ s decision making process . For example , saliency offers no insight for a misclassification when the model is “ looking ” at the right object for the wrong reasons . Alternatively , we can gain insight into the model ’ s decision process by breaking up predictions into a sequence of smaller semantically meaningful decisions as in rule-based models like decision trees . However , existing efforts to fuse deep learning and decision trees suffer from ( 1 ) significant accuracy loss , relative to contemporary models ( e.g. , residual networks ) , ( 2 ) reduced interpretability due to accuracy optimizations ( e.g. , impure leaves and ensembles ) , and ( 3 ) tree structures that offer limited insight into the model ’ s credibility . To address these , we propose Neural-Backed Decision Trees ( NBDTs ) to jointly improve both ( 1 ) accuracy and ( 2 ) interpretability of modern neural networks , utilizing decision rules that preserve ( 3 ) properties like sequential , discrete decisions ; pure leaves ; and non-ensembled predictions . These properties in unison enable unique insights , as we show . We acknowledge that there is no universally-accepted definition of interpretability ( Lundberg et al. , 2020 ; Doshi-Velez & Kim , 2017 ; Lipton , 2016 ) , so to show interpretability , we adopt a definition offered by Poursabzi-Sangdeh et al . ( 2018 ) : A model is interpretable if a human can validate its prediction , determining when the model has made a sizable mistake . We picked this definition for its importance to downstream benefits we can evaluate , specifically ( 1 ) model or dataset debugging and ( 2 ) improving human trust . To accomplish this , NBDTs replace the final linear layer of a neural network with a differentiable oblique decision tree and , unlike its predecessors ( i.e . decision trees , hierarchical classifiers ) , uses a hierarchy derived from model parameters , does not employ a hierarchical softmax , and can be created from any existing classification neural network without architectural modifications . These improvements ⇤denotes equal contribution tailor the hierarchy to the network rather than overfit to the feature space , lessens the decision tree ’ s reliance on highly uncertain decisions , and encourages accurate recognition of high-level concepts . These benefits culminate in joint improvement of accuracy and interpretability . Our contributions : 1 . We propose a tree supervision loss , yielding NBDTs that match/outperform and outgeneralize modern neural networks ( WideResNet , EfficientNet ) on ImageNet , TinyImageNet200 , and CIFAR100 . Our loss also improves the original model by up to 2 % . 2 . We propose alternative hierarchies for oblique decision trees – induced hierarchies built using pre-trained neural network weights – that outperform both data-based hierarchies ( e.g . built with information gain ) and existing hierarchies ( e.g . WordNet ) , in accuracy . 3 . We show NBDT explanations are more helpful to the user when identifying model mistakes , preferred when using the model to assist in challenging classification tasks , and can be used to identify ambiguous ImageNet labels . 2 RELATED WORKS . Saliency Maps . Numerous efforts ( Springenberg et al. , 2014 ; Zeiler & Fergus , 2014 ; Simonyan et al. , 2013 ; Zhang et al. , 2016 ; Selvaraju et al. , 2017 ; Ribeiro et al. , 2016 ; Petsiuk et al. , 2018 ; Sundararajan et al. , 2017 ) have explored the design of saliency maps identifying pixels that most influenced the model ’ s prediction . White-box techniques ( Springenberg et al. , 2014 ; Zeiler & Fergus , 2014 ; Simonyan et al. , 2013 ; Selvaraju et al. , 2017 ; Sundararajan et al. , 2017 ) use the network ’ s parameters to determine salient image regions , and black-box techniques ( Ribeiro et al. , 2016 ; Petsiuk et al. , 2018 ) determine pixel importance by measuring the prediction ’ s response to perturbed inputs . However , saliency does not explain the model ’ s decision process ( e.g . Was the model confused early on , distinguishing between Animal and Vehicle ? Or is it only confused between dog breeds ? ) . Transfer to Explainable Models . Prior to the recent success of deep learning , decision trees were state-of-the-art on a wide variety of learning tasks and the gold standard for interpretability . Despite this recency , study at the intersection of neural network and decision tree dates back three decades , where neural networks were seeded with decision tree weights ( Banerjee , 1990 ; 1994 ; Ivanova & Kubat , 1995a ; b ) , and decision trees were created from neural network queries ( Krishnan et al. , 1999 ; Boz , 2000 ; Dancey et al. , 2004 ; Craven & Shavlik , 1996 ; 1994 ) , like distillation ( Hinton et al. , 2015 ) . The modern analog of both sets of work ( Humbird et al. , 2018 ; Siu , 2019 ; Frosst & Hinton , 2017 ) evaluate on feature-sparse , sample-sparse regimes such as the UCI datasets ( Dua & Graff , 2017 ) or MNIST ( LeCun et al. , 2010 ) and perform poorly on standard image classification tasks . Hybrid Models . Recent work produces hybrid decision tree and neural network models to scale up to datasets like CIFAR10 ( Krizhevsky , 2009 ) , CIFAR100 ( Krizhevsky , 2009 ) , TinyImageNet ( Le & Yang , 2015 ) , and ImageNet ( Deng et al. , 2009 ) . One category of models organizes the neural network into a hierarchy , dynamically selecting branches to run inference ( Veit & Belongie , 2018 ; McGill & Perona , 2017 ; Teja Mullapudi et al. , 2018 ; Redmon & Farhadi , 2017 ; Murdock et al. , 2016 ) . However , these models use impure leaves resulting in uninterpretatble , stochastic paths . Other approaches fuse deep learning into each decision tree node : an entire neural network ( Murthy et al. , 2016 ) , several layers ( Murdock et al. , 2016 ; Roy & Todorovic , 2016 ) , a linear layer ( Ahmed et al. , 2016 ) , or some other parameterization of neural network output ( Kontschieder et al. , 2015 ) . These models see reduced interpretability by using k-way decisions with large k ( via depth-2 trees ) ( Ahmed et al. , 2016 ; Guo et al. , 2018 ) or employing an ensemble ( Kontschieder et al. , 2015 ; Ahmed et al. , 2016 ) , which is often referred to as a “ black box ” ( Carvalho et al. , 2019 ; Rudin , 2018 ) . Hierarchical Classification ( Silla & Freitas , 2011 ) . One set of approaches directly uses a preexisting hierarchy over classes , such as WordNet ( Redmon & Farhadi , 2017 ; Brust & Denzler , 2019 ; Deng et al. ) . However conceptual similarity is not indicative of visual similarity . Other models build a hierarchy using the training set directly , via a classic data-dependent metric like Gini impurity ( Alaniz & Akata , 2019 ) or information gain ( Rota Bulo & Kontschieder , 2014 ; Biçici et al. , 2018 ) . These models are instead prone to overfitting , per ( Tanno et al. , 2019 ) . Finally , several works introduce hierarchical surrogate losses ( Wu et al. , 2017 ; Deng et al. , 2012 ) , such as hierarchical softmax ( Mohammed & Umaashankar , 2018 ) , but as the authors note , these methods quickly suffer from major accuracy loss with more classes or higher-resolution images ( e.g . beyond CIFAR10 ) . We demonstrate hierarchical classifiers attain higher accuracy without a hierarchical softmax . 3 METHOD . Neural-Backed Decision Trees ( NBDTs ) replace a network ’ s final linear layer with a decision tree . Unlike classical decision trees or many hierarchical classifiers , NBDTs use path probabilities for inference ( Sec 3.1 ) to tolerate highly-uncertain intermediate decisions , build a hierarchy from pretrained model weights ( Sec 3.2 & 3.3 ) to lessen overfitting , and train with a hierarchical loss ( Sec 3.4 ) to significantly better learn high-level decisions ( e.g. , Animal vs . Vehicle ) . 3.1 INFERENCE . Our NBDT first featurizes each sample using the neural network backbone ; the backbone consists of all neural network layers before the final linear layer . Second , we run the final fully-connected layer as an oblique decision tree . However , ( a ) a classic decision tree can not recover from a mistake early in the hierarchy and ( b ) just running a classic decision tree on neural features drops accuracy significantly , by up to 11 % ( Table 2 ) . Thus , we present modified decision rules ( Figure 1 , B ) : 1 . Seed oblique decision rule weights with neural network weights . An oblique decision tree supports only binary decisions , using a hyperplane for each decision . Instead , we associate a weight vector ni with each node . For leaf nodes , where i = k 2 [ 1 , K ] , each ni = wk is a row vector from the fully-connected layer ’ s weights W 2 RD⇥K . For all inner nodes , where i 2 [ K+1 , N ] , find all leaves k 2 L ( i ) in node i ’ s subtree and average their weights : ni = P k2L ( i ) wk/|L ( i ) | . 2 . Compute node probabilities . Child probabilities are given by softmax inner products . For each sample x and node i , compute the probability of each child j 2 C ( i ) using p ( j|i ) = SOFTMAX ( h~ni , xi ) [ j ] , where ~ni = ( hnj , xi ) j2C ( i ) . 3 . Pick a leaf using path probabilities . Inspired by Deng et al . ( 2012 ) , consider a leaf , its class k and its path from the root Pk . The probability of each node i 2 Pk traversing the next node in the path Ck ( i ) 2 Pk \ C ( i ) is denoted p ( Ck ( i ) |i ) . Then , the probability of leaf and its class k is p ( k ) = ⇧i2Pkp ( Ck ( i ) |i ) ( 1 ) In soft inference , the final class prediction k̂ is defined over these class probabilities , k̂ = argmaxkp ( k ) = argmaxk⇧i2Pkp ( Ck ( i ) |i ) ( 2 ) Our inference strategy has two benefits : ( a ) Since the architecture is unchanged , the fully-connected layer can be run regularly ( Table 5 ) or as decision rules ( Table 1 ) , and ( b ) unlike decision trees and other conditionally-executed models ( Tanno et al. , 2019 ; Veit & Belongie , 2018 ) , our method can recover from a mistake early in the hierarchy with sufficient uncertainty in the incorrect path ( Figure 1 C , Appendix Table 7 ) . This inference mode bests classic tree inference ( Appendix C.2 ) .

6-sentence paper summary:
Aim to improve the interpretability and the accuracy of the neural network, this paper takes a step further on the integration of NN with a decision tree. It will replace the final linear layer of the NN with a decision tree induced by pre-trained model weights. It takes advantage of both hard and soft decision trees and designs suitable tree supervision loss thereon. Extensive experiments verify the design choice of the proposed components. On both small-scale and large-scale datasets, it beats the decision tree counterparts. Also, on the aspects of generalization and interpretability, it shows the strength compared to NN.