The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Permutation importance: a corrected feature importance measure
Open accessAbstract
Motivation: In life sciences, interpretability of machine learning models is as important as their prediction accuracy. Linear models are probably the most frequently used methods for assessing feature relevance, despite their relative inflexibility. However, in the past years effective estimators of feature relevance have been derived for highly complex or non-parametric models such as support vector machines and RandomForest (RF) models. Recently, it has been observed that RF models are biased in such a way that categorical variables with a large number of categories are preferred. Results: In this work, we introduce a heuristic for normalizing feature importance measures that can correct the feature importance bias. The method is based on repeated permutations of the outcome vector for estimating the distribution of measured importance for each variable in a non-informative setting. The P-value of the observed importance provides a corrected measure of feature importance. We apply our method to simulated data and demonstrate that (i) non-informative predictors do not receive significant P-values, (ii) informative variables can successfully be recovered among non-informative variables and (iii) P-values computed with permutation importance (PIMP) are very helpful for deciding the significance of variables, and therefore improve model interpretability. Furthermore, PIMP was used to correct RF-based importance measures for two real-world case studies. We propose an improved RF model that uses the significant variables with respect to the PIMP measure and show that its prediction accuracy is superior to that of other existing models. Availability: R code for the method presented in this article is available at http://www.mpi-inf.mpg.de/∼altmann/download/PIMP.R Contact: altmann@mpi-inf.mpg.de, laura.tolosi@mpi-inf.mpg.de Supplementary information: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Breiman, L. (2001) · Machine Learning · doi:10.1023/a:1010933404324 · Cited by 133,538
The Elements of Statistical Learning
Hastie, T., Friedman, J., & Tibshirani, R. (2001) · Springer Series in Statistics · doi:10.1007/978-0-387-21606-5 · Cited by 24,162
Unbiased Recursive Partitioning: A Conditional Inference Framework
Hothorn, T., Hornik, K., & Zeileis, A. (2006) · Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics · doi:10.1198/106186006x133933 · Cited by 4,021
Cited by
Explainable AI: a review of machine learning interpretability methods
Linardatos, P., Papastefanopoulos, V., & Kotsiantis, S. (2020) · Entropy · doi:10.3390/e23010018 · Cited by 2,922
Definitions, methods, and applications in interpretable machine learning
Murdoch, W. J., Singh, C., Kumbier, K., Abbasi-Asl, R., & Yu, B. (2019) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1900654116 · Cited by 2,167
A comparison of random forest variable selection methods for classification prediction modeling
Speiser, J. L., Miller, M. E., Tooze, J., & Ip, E. (2019) · Expert Systems with Applications · doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2019.05.028 · Cited by 1,561
Techniques for interpretable machine learning
Du, M., Liu, N., & Hu, X. (2019) · Communications of the ACM · doi:10.1145/3359786 · Cited by 1,268
Wang, J.-X., Wu, J.-L., & Xiao, H. (2017) · Physical Review Fluids · doi:10.1103/physrevfluids.2.034603 · Cited by 737
Metadata
- Authors
- Altmann, A., Toloşi, L., Sander, O., & Lengauer, T.
- Venue
- Bioinformatics
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2010-04-12
- Volume
- 26
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 1340-1347
- ISSN
- 1367-4803 (ISSN-L)
- 1367-4811
- OpenAlex
- W2102636708
- Cited by
- 2,843
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 6.12
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Permutation importance: a corrected feature importance measure. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/bioinformatics/btq134
- The paper
- Altmann, A., Toloşi, L., Sander, O., & Lengauer, T. (2010). Permutation importance: a corrected feature importance measure. Bioinformatics. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btq134
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.