The vast majority of research on explainability focuses on post-explainability rather than explainable modeling. Namely, an explanation model is derived to explain a complex black box model built with the sole purpose of achieving the highest performance possible. In part, this trend might be driven by the misconception that there is a trade-off between explainability and accuracy. Furthermore, the consequential work on Shapely values, grounded in game theory, has also contributed to a new wave of post-explainability research on better approximations for various machine learning models, including deep learning models. We propose a new architecture that inherently produces explainable predictions in the form of additive feature attributions. Our approach learns a graph representation for each record in the dataset. Attribute centric features are then derived from the graph and fed into a contribution deep set model to produce the final predictions. We show that our explainable model attains the same level of performance as black box models. Finally, we provide an augmented model training approach that leverages the missingness property and yields high levels of consistency (as required for the Shapely values) without loss of accuracy.

Causal modeling provides us with powerful counterfactual reasoning and interventional mechanism to generate predictions and reason under various what-if scenarios. However, causal discovery using observation data remains a nontrivial task due to unobserved confounding factors, finite sampling, and changes in the data distribution. These can lead to spurious cause-effect relationships. To mitigate these challenges in practice, researchers augment causal learning with known causal relations. The goal of the paper is to study the impact of expert knowledge on causal relations in the form of additional constraints used in the formulation of the nonparametric NOTEARS. We provide a comprehensive set of comparative analyses of biasing the model using different types of knowledge. We found that (i) knowledge that correct the mistakes of the NOTEARS model can lead to statistically significant improvements, (ii) constraints on active edges have a larger positive impact on causal discovery than inactive edges, and surprisingly, (iii) the induced knowledge does not correct on average more incorrect active and/or inactive edges than expected. We also demonstrate the behavior of the model and the effectiveness of domain knowledge on a real-world dataset.