The DOI matches its DataCite record; 36 of the 38 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Learning Certifiably Optimal Rule Lists for Categorical Data
Open accessAbstract
We present the design and implementation of a custom discrete optimization technique for building rule lists over a categorical feature space. Our algorithm produces rule lists with optimal training performance, according to the regularized empirical risk, with a certificate of optimality. By leveraging algorithmic bounds, efficient data structures, and computational reuse, we achieve several orders of magnitude speedup in time and a massive reduction of memory consumption. We demonstrate that our approach produces optimal rule lists on practical problems in seconds. Our results indicate that it is possible to construct optimal sparse rule lists that are approximately as accurate as the COMPAS proprietary risk prediction tool on data from Broward County, Florida, but that are completely interpretable. This framework is a novel alternative to CART and other decision tree methods for interpretable modeling.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“In fact, quite a lot of effort has been made by scientists to understand how COMPAS depends on important variables like race and age, without a lot of success (59, 60).”
From Interpretable algorithmic forensics (2023) · cites this paper as [60]
In the citing paper
“For example, researchers found that a simple model relying on age, gender, and prior criminal record was just as predictable as the COMPAS algorithm, which is proprietary and could rely on up to 137 inputs (32).”
From Interpretable algorithmic forensics (2023) · cites this paper as [32]
Citations
Cites
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
Cohen, W. W. (1995) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-1-55860-377-6.50023-2 · Cited by 3,890
Clark, P. A., & Niblett, T. (1989) · Machine Learning · doi:10.1023/a:1022641700528 · Cited by 2,267
European Union Regulations on Algorithmic Decision Making and a “Right to Explanation”
Goodman, B., & Flaxman, S. (2017) · AI Magazine · doi:10.1609/aimag.v38i3.2741 · Cited by 2,131 · cited 2×
“There are now regulations on algorithmic decision-making in the European Union on the “right to an explanation” [19] that would legally require interpretability of predictions.”
BackgroundThe robust beauty of improper linear models in decision making.
Dawes, R. M. (1979) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.34.7.571 · Cited by 2,046
Very Simple Classification Rules Perform Well on Most Commonly Used Datasets
Holte, R. C. (1993) · Machine Learning · doi:10.1023/a:1022631118932 · Cited by 1,800
Generating Accurate Rule Sets Without Global Optimization
Frank, E., & Witten, I. H. (1998) · Research Commons (University of Waikato) · doi:10.5555/645527.657305 · Cited by 1,297
The accuracy, fairness, and limits of predicting recidivism
Dressel, J., & Farid, H. (2018) · Science Advances · doi:10.1126/sciadv.aao5580 · Cited by 1,071
Rivest, R. L. (1987) · Machine Learning · doi:10.1023/a:1022607331053 · Cited by 894
BART: Bayesian Additive Regression Trees
Chipman, H., George, E. I., & McCulloch, R. E. (2006) · ScholarlyCommons (University of Pennsylvania) · Cited by 889
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 101–109 of 109
Chatterjee, S., & Simonoff, J. S. (2020) · Wiley series in probability and statistics · doi:10.1002/9781119392491.biblio
Machine Learning Can Predict Shooting Victimization Well Enough to Help Prevent ItPreprint
Heller, S., Jakubowski, B., Jelveh, Z., & Kapustin, M. (2022) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4140888
The Past and the Future of Explainable AI Techniques
Kameya, Y. (2022) · IEICE ESS FUNDAMENTALS REVIEW · doi:10.1587/essfr.16.2_83
The Statistics of Interpretable Machine Learning
Watson, D. (2022) · Digital ethics lab yearbook · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-09846-8_10 · Cited by 1
GrMC: Towards Interpretable Classification Models That Are Also Accurate
Dong, G., & Skapura, N. (2023) · IEEE International Conference on Knowledge Graph (ICKG) · doi:10.1109/ickg59574.2023.00031
corels: R Binding for the 'Certifiably Optimal RulE ListS (Corels)' Learner
Eddelbüttel, D., Larus-Stone, N., & Angelino, E. (2020) · doi:10.32614/cran.package.corels
Self-citationChen, P., & He, T. (2025) · Mathematics · doi:10.3390/math13081305
Applications and Challenges of Fairness APIs in Machine Learning Software
Das, A., Uddin, G., Chowdhury, S., Akhond, M. R., & Hemmati, H. (2025) · ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology · doi:10.1145/3765735 · Cited by 1
Striking the Right Balance Between Greed and Force
Saluschke, M., & Schulz, M. (2026) · Advances in computational intelligence and robotics book series · doi:10.4018/404027
Metadata
- Authors
- Angelino, E., Larus-Stone, N., Alabi, D., Seltzer, M., & Rudin, C.
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2017
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 1704.01701
- OpenAlex
- W2606882704
- Cited by
- 108
- References
- 38
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 26 · 2022: 23 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 2
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- 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 › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning and Data Classification
- Keywords
- categorical data, discrete optimization, optimality certificates, model interpretability, decision tree, Broward County
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
