Paper:
Diminishing Returns Shape Constraints for Interpretability and Regularization
We investigate machine learning models that can provide diminishing returns and accelerating returns guarantees to capture prior knowledge or policies about how outputs should depend on inputs. We show that one can build flexible, nonlinear, multi-dimensional models using lattice functions with any combination of concavity/convexity and monotonicity constraints on any subsets of features, and compare to new shape-constrained neural networks. We demonstrate on real-world examples that these shape constrained models can provide tuning-free regularization and improve model understandability.

Review:
This paper is about learning models constrained to be convex/concave increasing/decreasing in their *inputs*. Two such models are studied: neural networks, and lattice interpolation models. The two models are not comparable: the former is *jointly* constrained, while the latter is independently constrained in each input dimension.  The core motivation is interpretability and encoding prior assumptions (e.g. diminishing returns.) The learned models strictly enforce their constraints and perform well (sometimes better than unconstrained models) on a number of real-world tasks (albeit fairly low-dimensional -- a limitation of lattice models, if I understand correctly).  Strengths: - Two new constrained architectures with different properties but good performance are proposed. This gives potential users choice. - The exposition and motivatoin of the paper are very good: a pleasant and convincing read for someone who has not previously thought much about enforcing such constraints. It will change the way I tackle certain problems in the future.  Weaknesses: - While there is not much related work, I am wondering whether more experimental comparisons would be appropriate, e.g. with min-max networks, or Dugas et al., at least on some dataset where such models can express the desired constraints. - The technical delta from monotonic models (existing) to monotonic and convex/concave seems rather small, but sufficient and valuable, in my opinion. - The explanation of lattice models (S4) is fairly opaque for readers unfamiliar with such models. - The SCNN architecture is pretty much given as-is and is pretty terse; I would appreciate a bit more explanation, comparison to ICNN, and maybe a figure. It is not obvious for me to see that it leads to a convex and monotonic model, so it would be great if the paper would guide the reader a bit more there.  Questions: - Lattice models expect the input to be scaled in [0, 1]. If this is done at training time using the min/max from the training set, then some test set samples might be clipped, right? Are the constraints affected in such situations? Does convexity hold?  - I know the author's motivation (unlike ICNN) is not to learn easy-to-minimize functions; but would convex lattice models be easy to minimize?  - Why is this paper categorized under Fairness/Accountability/Transparency, am I missing something?  - The SCNN getting "lucky" on domain pricing is suspicious given your hyperparameter tuning. Are the chosen hyperparameters ever at the end of the searched range? The distance to the next best model is suspiciously large there.  Presentation suggestions:  - The introduction claims that "these shape constraints do not require tuning a free parameter". While technically true, the *choice* of employing a convex or concave constraint, and an increasing/decreasing constraint, can be seen as a hyperparameter that needs to be chosen or tuned.  - "We have found it easier to be confident about applying ceterus paribus convexity;" -- the word "confident" threw me off a little here, as I was not sure if this is about model confidence or human interpretability. I suspect the latter, but some slight rephrasing would be great.  - Unless I missed something, unconstrained neural nets are still often the best model on half of the tasks. After thinking about it, this is not surprising. It would be nice to guide the readers toward acknowledging this.  - Notation: the x[d] notation is used in eqn 1 before being defined on line 133.  - line 176: "corresponds" should be "corresponding" (or alternatively, replace "GAMs, with the" -> "GAMs; the")  - line 216: "was not separately run" -> "it was not separately run" - line 217: "a human can summarize the machine learned as": not sure what this means, possibly "a human can summarize what the machine (has) learned as"? or "a human can summarize the machine-learned model as"? Consider rephrasing. - line 274, 279: write out "standard deviation" instead of "std dev" - line 281: write out "diminishing returns" - "Result Scoring" strikes me as a bit too vague for a section heading, it could be perceived to be about your experiment result. Is there a more specific name for this task, maybe "query relevance scoring" or something?  === I have read your feedback. Thank you for addressing my observations; moving appendix D to the main seems like a good idea. I am not changing my score.