MDA for random forests: inconsistency, and a practical solution via the\n Sobol-MDA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.030 | 0.114 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".