Cited by 10,551Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)Artificial Intelligence in HealthcareData Mining Algorithms and Applications

From local explanations to global understanding with explainable AI for trees

Open access
Lundberg, Scott M., Erion, Gabriel, Chen, Hugh, DeGrave, Alex, Prutkin, Jordan M., Nair, Bala, Katz, Ronit, Himmelfarb, Jonathan +2 more·2020·Nature Machine Intelligence

Abstract

Tree-based machine learning models such as random forests, decision trees, and gradient boosted trees are popular non-linear predictive models, yet comparatively little attention has been paid to explaining their predictions. Here, we improve the interpretability of tree-based models through three main contributions: 1) The first polynomial time algorithm to compute optimal explanations based on game theory. 2) A new type of explanation that directly measures local feature interaction effects. 3) A new set of tools for understanding global model structure based on combining many local explanations of each prediction. We apply these tools to three medical machine learning problems and show how combining many high-quality local explanations allows us to represent global structure while retaining local faithfulness to the original model. These tools enable us to i) identify high magnitude but low frequency non-linear mortality risk factors in the US population, ii) highlight distinct population sub-groups with shared risk characteristics, iii) identify non-linear interaction effects among risk factors for chronic kidney disease, and iv) monitor a machine learning model deployed in a hospital by identifying which features are degrading the model's performance over time. Given the popularity of tree-based machine learning models, these improvements to their interpretability have implications across a broad set of domains.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/s42256-019-0138-9

Cites

44 of 44 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • SHAP popularized Shapley values for machine learning feature importance, with extensions to tree models.

    “SHAP [6] popularized this for machine learning feature importance, with extensions to tree models [5].”
  • Tree SHAP provides interpretable explanations suitable for regression and classification of models with tree structure applied to tabular data.

    “The algorithm provides interpretable explanations suitable for regression and classification of models with tree structure applied to tabular data [22,39].”

    From Explainable AI (XAI): Core Ideas, Techniques, and Solutions (2023) · cites this paper as [39]

  • ML and AI techniques, such as social network analysis and agent-based modeling, can model the complex interactions between individuals and their social environments to identify key leverage points for interventions that promote health and well-being across communities.

    “ML and AI techniques, such as social network analysis and agent-based modeling, can model the complex interactions between individuals and their social environments to identify key leverage points for interventions that promote health and well-being across communities [40, 47].”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [2]Friedman J, Hastie T & Tibshirani R The elements of statistical learning (Springer series in statistics Springer, Berlin, 2001).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lundberg, S. M., Erion, G., Chen, H., DeGrave, A., Prutkin, J. M., Nair, B., Katz, R., Himmelfarb, J., Bansal, N., & Lee, S.-I.
Affiliations
  • Microsoft (United States) (US)
  • University of Washington (US)
Corresponding author
Lee, Su-In
Venue
Nature Machine Intelligence
Published
2020-01-17
Volume
2
Issue
1
Pages
56-67
ISSN
2522-5839 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2999615587
Cited by
10,551
References
38
Citations by year
2026: 3607 · 2025: 2330 · 2024: 1650 · 2023: 1197 · 2022: 959 · 2021: 614 · 2020: 187 · 2019: 4 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 1
FWCI
291.51
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature Machine Intelligence (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (DGE-1256082, DBI-1759487, DBI-1552309, DBI-1355899)
  • American Cancer Society (127332-RSG-15-097-01-TBG)
  • U.S. Department of Health & Human Services | National Institutes of Health (R35 GM 128638, R01 NIA AG 061132)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Data Mining Algorithms and Applications
Keywords
explainable AI, tree-based models, local explanations, mortality risk, chronic kidney disease, model monitoring, machine learning in medicine

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