ArticlePatterns (New York, N.Y.)2025
Model interpretability enhances domain generalization in the case of textual complexity modeling.
Article in Patterns (New York, N.Y.), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- SIMBA: A robust and generalizable measure of data imbalance.Patterns (New York, N.Y.) · 2025Article
- From nucleotides to numbers: a comprehensive review of RNA feature extraction methods for computational modelling.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2025Review
- Artificial Intelligence in Edible Mushroom Cultivation, Breeding, and Classification: A Comprehensive Review.Journal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Model interpretability enhances domain generalization in the case of textual complexity modeling.Patterns (New York, N.Y.) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Balancing prediction accuracy, model interpretability, and domain generalization (also known as [a.k.a.] out-of-distribution testing/evaluation) is a central challenge in machine learning. To assess this challenge, we took 120 interpretable and 166 opaque models from 77,640 tuned configurations, complemented with ChatGPT, 3 probabilistic language models, and Vec2Read. The models first performed text classification to derive principles of textual complexity (task 1) and then generalized these to predict readers' appraisals of processing difficulty (task 2). The results confirmed the known accuracy-interpretability trade-off on task 1. However, task 2's domain generalization showed that interpretable models outperform complex, opaque models. Multiplicative interactions further improved interpretable models' domain generalization incrementally. We advocate for the value of big data for training, complemented by (1) external theories to enhance interpretability and guide machine learning and (2) small, well-crafted out-of-distribution data to validate models-together ensuring domain generalization and robustness against data shifts.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.