mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

MDA for random forests: inconsistency, and a practical solution via the Sobol-MDA

arXiv 2102.13347 ↗First posted 26 Feb 2021stat.ML cs.LGcited by 10

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Variable importance measures are the main tools to analyze the black-box mechanisms of random forests. Although the mean decrease accuracy (MDA) is widely accepted as the most efficient variable importance measure for random forests, little is known about its statistical properties. In fact, the definition of MDA varies across the main random forest software. In this article, our objective is to rigorously analyze the behavior of the main MDA implementations. Consequently, we mathematically formalize the various implemented MDA algorithms, and then establish their limits when the sample size increases. This asymptotic analysis reveals that these MDA versions differ as importance measures, since they converge towards different quantities. More importantly, we break down these limits into three components: the first two terms are related to Sobol indices, which are well-defined measures of a covariate contribution to the response variance, widely used in the sensitivity analysis field, as opposed to the third term, whose value increases with dependence within covariates. Thus, we theoretically demonstrate that the MDA does not target the right quantity to detect influential covariates in a dependent setting, a fact that has already been noticed experimentally. To address this issue, we define a new importance measure for random forests, the Sobol-MDA, which fixes the flaws of the original MDA, and consistently estimates the accuracy decrease of the forest retrained without a given covariate, but with an efficient computational cost. The Sobol-MDA empirically outperforms its competitors on both simulated and real data for variable selection. An open source implementation in R and C++ is available online.

Key facts. Cited by 10 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 18 of its 66 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 26 Feb 2021.

Builds on

18 of 66 references.

References · 18

  1. 2017A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictionscited by 6,488
  2. 2015Estimation and Inference of Heterogeneous Treatment Effects using Random Forestscited by 597
  3. 2018Consistent Individualized Feature Attribution for Tree Ensemblescited by 279
  4. 2019Explaining individual predictions when features are dependent: More accurate approximations to Shapley valuescited by 205
  5. 2015ranger: A Fast Implementation of Random Forests for High Dimensional Data in C++ and Rcited by 171
  6. 2019Unrestricted Permutation forces Extrapolation: Variable Importance Requires at least One More Model, or There Is No Free Variable Importancecited by 85
  7. 2014Consistency of random forestscited by 84
  8. 2014Understanding Random Forests: From Theory to Practicecited by 57
  9. 2020A general framework for inference on algorithm-agnostic variable importancecited by 44
  10. 2013Correlation and variable importance in random forestscited by 41
  11. 2019Unbiased Measurement of Feature Importance in Tree-Based Methodscited by 30
  12. 2019A Debiased MDI Feature Importance Measure for Random Forestscited by 24
6 more
  1. 2019Asymptotic Distributions and Rates of Convergence for Random Forests via Generalized U-statisticscited by 18
  2. 2014Grouped variable importance with random forests and application to multiple functional data analysiscited by 16
  3. 2020Trees, forests, and impurity-based variable importancecited by 16
  4. 2020Unbiased variable importance for random forestscited by 11
  5. 2020Getting Better from Worse: Augmented Bagging and a Cautionary Tale of Variable Importancecited by 10
  6. 2020Understanding Global Feature Contributions With Additive Importance Measurescited by 10

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2021: 2; 2022: 5; 2023: 2; 2024: 0; 2025: 0; 2026: 1.

10 papers.