The DOI matches its Crossref record; 62 of the 62 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Unbiased Recursive Partitioning: A Conditional Inference Framework
Open accessAbstract
Recursive binary partitioning is a popular tool for regression analysis. Two fundamental problems of exhaustive search procedures usually applied to fit such models have been known for a long time: overfitting and a selection bias towards covariates with many possible splits or missing values. While pruning procedures are able to solve the overfitting problem, the variable selection bias still seriously affects the interpretability of tree-structured regression models. For some special cases unbiased procedures have been suggested, however lacking a common theoretical foundation. We propose a unified framework for recursive partitioning which embeds tree-structured regression models into a well defined theory of conditional inference procedures. Stopping criteria based on multiple test procedures are implemented and it is shown that the predictive performance of the resulting trees is as good as the performance of established exhaustive search procedures. It turns out that the partitions and therefore the models induced by both approaches are structurally different, confirming the need for an unbiased variable selection. Moreover, it is shown that the prediction accuracy of trees with early stopping is equivalent to the prediction accuracy of pruned trees with unbiased variable selection. The methodology presented here is applicable to all kinds of regression problems, including nominal, ordinal, numeric, censored as well as multivariate response variables and arbitrary measurement scales of the covariates. Data from studies on glaucoma classification, node positive breast cancer survival and mammography experience are re-analyzed.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so the self-check wasn’t run.
Citations
Cites
(1990) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.27-3338 · Cited by 35,305
Classification and Regression Trees.
Gordon, A. D., Breiman, L., Friedman, J. H., Olshen, R. A., & Stone, C. J. (1984) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2530946 · Cited by 23,867
(1992) · Cited by 23,431
Classification and Regression Trees.
Ryzin, J. V., Breiman, L., Friedman, J. H., Olshen, R. A., & Stone, C. J. (1986) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.2307/2288003 · Cited by 21,030
UCI Repository of machine learning databases
Blake, C. L. (1998) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 10,582
Hapeman, D. E., & Agresti, A. (1991) · Technometrics · doi:10.1080/00401706.1991.10484817 · Cited by 9,407
Mathematical Methods of Statistics.
Geary, R. C., & Cramer, H. L. (1947) · The Economic Journal · doi:10.2307/2226151 · Cited by 6,095
An exploratory technique for investigating large quantities of categorical data
Kass, G. V. (1980) · Applied Statistics · doi:10.2307/2986296 · Cited by 2,880
UCI Repository of Machine Learning Databases
Merz, C. J. (1996) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 2,363
MULTIVARIATE REGRESSION TREES: A NEW TECHNIQUE FOR MODELING SPECIES–ENVIRONMENT RELATIONSHIPS
De’ath, G. (2002) · Ecology · doi:10.1890/0012-9658(2002)083[1105:mrtant]2.0.co;2 · Cited by 1,275
Research works printed but not linked: 9
- De'ath G., 2002, Ecology, 83, 1105
- Dobra A., 2001, Proceedings of the Eighteenth International Conference on Machine Learning, San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann, pp., 90
- Frank E., 1998, Proceedings of the Fifteenth International Conference on Machine Learning, San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann, pp., 152
- Loh W.-Y., 2002, Statistica Sinica, 12, 361
- Loh W.-Y., 1997, Statistica Sinica, 7, 815
- Mingers J., 1987, Journal of the Operations Research Society, 38, 39
- Peters A., 2002, R News, 2, 33
- Schumacher M., 2001, J. Crowley, New York, Basel: Marcel Dekker, pp., 321
- White A. P., 1994, Machine Learning, 15, 321
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 1,001–1,011 of 1,011
(2014) · RePEc: Research Papers in Economics · Cited by 30
Wang, Y. K., Print, C. G., & Crampin, E. J. (2013) · BMC Genomics · doi:10.1186/1471-2164-14-102 · Cited by 28
Performance of early risk assessment tools to predict the later development of gestational diabetes
Kotzaeridi, G., Blätter, J., Eppel, D., Rosicky, I., Mittlböck, M., Yerlikaya‐Schatten, G., Schatten, C., Husslein, P., Eppel, W., Huhn, E. A., et al. (2021) · European Journal of Clinical Investigation · doi:10.1111/eci.13630 · Cited by 27
Distributed Practice: Rarely Realized in Self-Regulated Mathematical Learning
Barzagar Nazari, K., & Ebersbach, M. (2018) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02170 · Cited by 23
Impacts of historical ditching on peat volume and carbon in northern Minnesota USA peatlands
Krause, L., McCullough, K. J., Kane, E. S., Kolka, R. K., Chimner, R. A., & Lilleskov, E. A. (2021) · Journal of Environmental Management · doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.113090 · Cited by 23
Shi, X., Moudon, A. V., Hurvitz, P. M., Mooney, S. J., Zhou, C., & Saelens, B. E. (2021) · Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives · doi:10.1016/j.trip.2021.100323 · Cited by 20
Predictors of involuntary patients’ satisfaction with care: prospective study
Bainbridge, E., Hallahan, B., McGuinness, D., Gunning, P., Newell, J., Higgins, A., Murphy, K., & McDonald, C. (2018) · BJPsych Open · doi:10.1192/bjo.2018.65 · Cited by 14
Multimodal User Feedback During Adaptive Robot-Human Presentations
Axelsson, A., & Skantze, G. (2022) · Frontiers in Computer Science · doi:10.3389/fcomp.2021.741148 · Cited by 14
Dale, B. A., Finch, W. H., Shellabarger, K. A. R., & Davis, A. (2021) · Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment · doi:10.1177/07342829211025924 · Cited by 11
Jones, A., Watt, J. A., Maclagan, L. C., Swayze, S., Jaakkimainen, L., Schull, M. J., & Bronskill, S. E. (2023) · Journal of the American Geriatrics Society · doi:10.1111/jgs.18457 · Cited by 8
Parsimonious statistical learning models for low flow estimation
Laimighofer, J., Melcher, M., & Laaha, G. (2021) · doi:10.5194/hess-2021-481 · Cited by 30
“– The third method (cfrank) uses conditional forests (Hothorn et al., 2006; Strobl et al., 2007, 2009) for variable ranking, where the standardized coefficients are a sum of the main and interaction effects for each variable.”
Method
Metadata
- Authors
- Hothorn, T., Hornik, K., & Zeileis, A.
- Affiliations
- Vienna University of Economics and Business (AT)
- Venue
- Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2006-09
- Volume
- 15
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 651-674
- ISSN
- 1061-8600 (ISSN-L)
- 1537-2715
- OpenAlex
- W2123998733
- Cited by
- 4,021
- References
- 57
- Citations by year
- 2026: 171 · 2025: 247 · 2024: 272 · 2023: 310 · 2022: 348 · 2021: 381 · 2020: 332 · 2019: 340 · 2018: 292 · 2017: 258 · 2016: 198 · 2015: 228 · 2014: 171 · 2013: 139 · 2012: 117
- FWCI
- 27.53
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- doi.org
- Locations
- Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics (publishedVersion)
- ePubWU Institutional Repository (Vienna University of Economics and Business) (submittedVersion)
- WU Research (submittedVersion)
- Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)
- Funders
- Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
- Linköpings Universitet
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Inference
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Data Mining Algorithms and Applications
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Applications
- Keywords
- conditional inference, variable selection bias, overfitting, stopping rules, multiple comparisons, early stopping, tree pruning, missing data, prediction accuracy, censored responses, multivariate response
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