Learning Auditable Classifier Models: Source-Disjoint Tree Ensembles
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Predictive models in clinical and regulated settings must be accurate and fully auditable. Tree ensembles deliver strong accuracy on tabular data, but their sequential boosting couples structure discovery with coefficient estimation, making compact per-prediction auditing difficult. Interpretable alternatives impose structural constraints that limit expressiveness: generalized additive models typically restrict interactions to pairwise terms and post-hoc rule extractors produce overlapping rules that hinder compact interpretation. We introduce Residual Pattern Tree Ensemble (RPTE), a three-stage learning approach, that is built on three key principles: bounded feature budget, source disjointness, and separate coefficient estimation. Stage~1 builds a supervised symbolic feature vocabulary. Stage~2 grows shallow trees under a source-disjointness constraint, where each raw variable is allocated to at most one tree, and retains only the discovered tree structures. Stage~3 solves a single ℓ1-regularized logistic regression over leaf-region indicators, yielding jointly optimal sparse coefficients. This learning approach ensures that every prediction decomposes into an algebraic sum of named, non-overlapping rule contributions, enabling full auditability by design. Empirical evaluation on twelve clinical-domain binary classification benchmarks using repeated stratified 5-fold cross-validation shows that RPTE performs competitively against tuned opaque ensembles and interpretable baselines. RPTE reduces model inspection units by 9× to 87× relative to XGBoost and maintains lower audit complexity than EBM on all 12 datasets. RuleFit requires comparable or fewer inspection units on three datasets where its rule count is small, but without source-disjointness guarantees. The source code is available at hrefhttps://github.com/srikumar2050/hugiml-corethis https URL.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 18 of its 46 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 16 Aug 2026.
Builds on
18 of 46 references.
References · 18
- 2017A Unified Approach to Interpreting Model Predictionscited by 6,555
- 2016XGBoost: A Scalable Tree Boosting Systemcited by 5,166
- 2016"Why Should I Trust You?": Explaining the Predictions of Any Classifiercited by 5,070
- 2019Similarity of Neural Network Representations Revisitedcited by 1,755
- 2019Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI): Concepts, Taxonomies, Opportunities and Challenges toward Responsible AIcited by 1,552
- 2021Tabular Data: Deep Learning is Not All You Needcited by 535
- 2021Interpretable Machine Learning: Fundamental Principles and 10 Grand Challengescited by 367
- 2020Neural Additive Models: Interpretable Machine Learning with Neural Netscited by 319
- 2019Interpretable machine learning: definitions, methods, and applicationscited by 305
- 2019InterpretML: A Unified Framework for Machine Learning Interpretabilitycited by 246
- 2015Interpretable classifiers using rules and Bayesian analysis: Building a better stroke prediction modelcited by 140
- 2019On the Existence of Simpler Machine Learning Modelscited by 89
6 more
- 2022Exploring the Whole Rashomon Set of Sparse Decision Treescited by 81
- 2015Supersparse Linear Integer Models for Optimized Medical Scoring Systemscited by 76
- 2020PMLB v1.0: An open source dataset collection for benchmarking machine learning methodscited by 58
- 2022Fast Interpretable Greedy-Tree Sumscited by 13
- 2024Scalable Rule Lists Learning with Samplingcited by 4
- 2017QCBA: Improving Rule Classifiers Learned from Quantitative Data by Recovering Information Lost by Discretisationcited by 2
Built on by
Not cited yet.