The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The behaviour of random forest permutation-based variable importance measures under predictor correlation
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Random forests (RF) have been increasingly used in applications such as genome-wide association and microarray studies where predictor correlation is frequently observed. Recent works on permutation-based variable importance measures (VIMs) used in RF have come to apparently contradictory conclusions. We present an extended simulation study to synthesize results. RESULTS: In the case when both predictor correlation was present and predictors were associated with the outcome (HA), the unconditional RF VIM attributed a higher share of importance to correlated predictors, while under the null hypothesis that no predictors are associated with the outcome (H0) the unconditional RF VIM was unbiased. Conditional VIMs showed a decrease in VIM values for correlated predictors versus the unconditional VIMs under HA and was unbiased under H0. Scaled VIMs were clearly biased under HA and H0. CONCLUSIONS: Unconditional unscaled VIMs are a computationally tractable choice for large datasets and are unbiased under the null hypothesis. Whether the observed increased VIMs for correlated predictors may be considered a "bias" - because they do not directly reflect the coefficients in the generating model - or if it is a beneficial attribute of these VIMs is dependent on the application. For example, in genetic association studies, where correlation between markers may help to localize the functionally relevant variant, the increased importance of correlated predictors may be an advantage. On the other hand, we show examples where this increased importance may result in spurious signals.
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
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
Detecting gene–gene interactions that underlie human diseases
Cordell, H. J. (2009) · Nature Reviews Genetics · doi:10.1038/nrg2579 · Cited by 1,350
Cited by
On safari to Random Jungle: a fast implementation of Random Forests for high-dimensional data
Schwarz, D. F., König, I. R., & Ziegler, A. (2010) · Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btq257 · Cited by 269
Self-citationHooker, G., Mentch, L., & Zhou, S. (2021) · Statistics and Computing · doi:10.1007/s11222-021-10057-z · Cited by 264
Feature Importance in Gradient Boosting Trees with Cross-Validation Feature Selection
Adler, A. I., & Painsky, A. (2022) · Entropy · doi:10.3390/e24050687 · Cited by 149
Conceptual challenges for interpretable machine learning
Watson, D. S. (2022) · Synthese · doi:10.1007/s11229-022-03485-5 · Cited by 87
Testing conditional independence in supervised learning algorithms
Watson, D. S., & Wright, M. N. (2021) · Machine Learning · doi:10.1007/s10994-021-06030-6 · Cited by 13
Metadata
- Authors
- Nicodemus, K. K., Malley, J. D., Strobl, C., & Ziegler, A.
- Venue
- BMC Bioinformatics
- Published
- 2010-02-27
- Volume
- 11
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 110-110
- ISSN
- 1471-2105 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2115380778
- Cited by
- 376
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 13.47
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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: The behaviour of random forest permutation-based variable importance measures under predictor correlation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1186/1471-2105-11-110
- The paper
- Nicodemus, K. K., Malley, J. D., Strobl, C., & Ziegler, A. (2010). The behaviour of random forest permutation-based variable importance measures under predictor correlation. BMC Bioinformatics. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2105-11-110
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.