# Accurate estimation of feature importance faithfulness for tree models

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.03426 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.03426/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 14 of its 22 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 4 Apr 2024.

## Builds on (most cited first, 14 of 14)

- [A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1705.07874/) (2017)
- [XGBoost: A Scalable Tree Boosting System](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1603.02754/) (2016)
- ["Why Should I Trust You?": Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifier](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1602.04938/) (2016)
- [RISE: Randomized Input Sampling for Explanation of Black-box Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1806.07421/) (2018)
- [ERASER: A Benchmark to Evaluate Rationalized NLP Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1911.03429/) (2019)
- [A Benchmark for Interpretability Methods in Deep Neural Networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1806.10758/) (2018)
- [On the Robustness of Interpretability Methods](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1806.08049/) (2018)
- [On the (In)fidelity and Sensitivity for Explanations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1901.09392/) (2019)
- [A Survey on the Explainability of Supervised Machine Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2011.07876/) (2020)
- [OpenXAI: Towards a Transparent Evaluation of Model Explanations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2206.11104/) (2022)
- [Model Agnostic Supervised Local Explanations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1807.02910/) (2018)
- [Synthetic Benchmarks for Scientific Research in Explainable Machine Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2106.12543/) (2021)
- [The Road to Explainability is Paved with Bias: Measuring the Fairness of Explanations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2205.03295/) (2022)
- [Fairness via Explanation Quality: Evaluating Disparities in the Quality of Post hoc Explanations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2205.07277/) (2022)

## Abstract (arXiv)

In this paper, we consider a perturbation-based metric of predictive faithfulness of feature rankings (or attributions) that we call PGI squared. When applied to decision tree-based regression models, the metric can be computed accurately and efficiently for arbitrary independent feature perturbation distributions. In particular, the computation does not involve Monte Carlo sampling that has been typically used for computing similar metrics and which is inherently prone to inaccuracies. Moreover, we propose a method of ranking features by their importance for the tree model's predictions based on PGI squared. Our experiments indicate that in some respects, the method may identify the globally important features better than the state-of-the-art SHAP explainer