Pith. sign in

REVIEW

Assessing variable activity for Bayesian regression trees

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2005.13622 v2 pith:VQLT23AH submitted 2020-05-27 stat.ME

Assessing variable activity for Bayesian regression trees

classification stat.ME
keywords indicesvariableeffectssobolbartcountsone-wayregression
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

Bayesian Additive Regression Trees (BART) are non-parametric models that can capture complex exogenous variable effects. In any regression problem, it is often of interest to learn which variables are most active. Variable activity in BART is usually measured by counting the number of times a tree splits for each variable. Such one-way counts have the advantage of fast computations. Despite their convenience, one-way counts have several issues. They are statistically unjustified, cannot distinguish between main effects and interaction effects, and become inflated when measuring interaction effects. An alternative method well-established in the literature is Sobol' indices, a variance-based global sensitivity analysis technique. However, these indices often require Monte Carlo integration, which can be computationally expensive. This paper provides analytic expressions for Sobol' indices for BART posterior samples. These expressions are easy to interpret and are computationally feasible. Furthermore, we will show a fascinating connection between first-order (main-effects) Sobol' indices and one-way counts. We also introduce a novel ranking method, and use this to demonstrate that the proposed indices preserve the Sobol'-based rank order of variable importance. Finally, we compare these methods using analytic test functions and the En-ROADS climate impacts simulator.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.