Cited by 425Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)Data Mining Algorithms and ApplicationsData Mining and Machine Learning Applications

An empirical evaluation of the comprehensibility of decision table, tree and rule based predictive models

Huysmans, Johan, Dejaeger, Karel, Mues, Christophe, Vanthienen, Jan, Baesens, Bart·2011·Decision Support Systems

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.dss.2010.12.003

Cites

72 of 72 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • ML models are used with the ultimate intention of supporting decision making.

    “ML models are used with the ultimate intention of supporting decision making [92].”
  • Decision trees, rules, and linear models are considered easily understandable and interpretable for humans.

    “These models are considered easily understandable and interpretable for humans.”

    From A Survey of Methods for Explaining Black Box Models (2019) · cites this paper as [36]

  • Existing works either provide only a general overview of the problem or focus on particular aspects, rather than a clear classification considering problem, solution, data, and predictor simultaneously.

    “Existing works tend to provide just a general overview of the problem [59] highlighting unanswered questions and problems [24]. On the other hand, other works focus on particular aspects like the impact of representation formats on comprehensibility [36], or the interpretability issues in term of advantages and disadvantages of selected predictive models [27].”

    From A Survey of Methods for Explaining Black Box Models (2019) · cites this paper as [36]

  • In the state of the art, a small set of existing interpretable models is recognized: decision trees, rules, and linear models.

    “In the state of the art a small set of existing interpretable models is recognized: decision tree , rules , linear models [27,36,84].”

    From A Survey of Methods for Explaining Black Box Models (2019) · cites this paper as [36]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 73 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Huysmans, J., Dejaeger, K., Mues, C., Vanthienen, J., & Baesens, B.
Affiliations
  • KU Leuven (BE)
  • University of Southampton (GB)
Corresponding author
Baesens, Bart
Venue
Decision Support Systems
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2011-04
Volume
51
Issue
1
Pages
141-154
ISSN
0167-9236 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2013587512
Cited by
425
References
73
Citations by year
2026: 16 · 2025: 34 · 2024: 46 · 2023: 34 · 2022: 34 · 2021: 42 · 2020: 38 · 2019: 47 · 2018: 31 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 21 · 2014: 16 · 2013: 14 · 2012: 14
FWCI
11.51
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Decision Support Systems (publishedVersion)
  • ePrints Soton (University of Southampton) (submittedVersion)
  • Lirias (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Data Mining Algorithms and Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Data Mining and Machine Learning Applications
Keywords
model comprehensibility, interpretability, decision tables, decision tree, classification, representation format, end-user evaluation, reaction time (psychology), answer confidence, user preferences

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review