Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 71 references

Cluster-Based Random Forest Visualization and Interpretation

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that random forests should be interpreted through clusters of similar decision trees, grouped by both split rules and predictions, rather than through individual trees or a single simplified summary.

desk verdict Useful RF visualization system with a genuinely new tree distance, but the distance is asymmetric as written and the evaluation is too thin to fully back the claims. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.22665 v1 pith:YQLKRTN5 submitted 2025-07-30 cs.LG cs.HC

Max Sondag , Christofer Meinecke , Dennis Collaris , Tatiana von Landesberger , Stef van den Elzen This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LGcs.HC
keywords randomforestdecisiontreeclusteringdistancemetricexplainableAIvisualanalyticsfeatureplotrule
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper claims that the right unit of interpretation for a random forest is neither the individual tree nor one aggregated summary, but clusters of trees that make decisions in similar ways. To form these clusters it introduces a distance metric that compares the decision rules (paths with split thresholds) of two trees and only matches rules that predict the same class. The resulting clusters are visualized with two new idioms: the Feature Plot, which shows which features are split at each depth, and the Rule Plot, which maps all rules in a cluster onto the cluster's representative tree. The authors show through a Glass-dataset case study and a small user study that this middle-ground view supports tasks like judging model reliability, finding misclassified classes, and identifying important features. The motivation is that a forest's structure is multi-level, so a single summary hides the variability that clustering preserves.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the rule-interval distance metric defined in Eqs. (1)--(3), which represents each tree as a set of root-to-leaf rules, each rule as a per-feature interval, and compares two trees by averaging the distance from each rule of the first tree to its closest same-class rule in the second. This metric is what makes the cluster-level visualizations possible: it produces the pairwise dissimilarity matrix used for complete-linkage hierarchical clustering with dynamic hybrid cut, the MDS projection in the Sidebar, and the mapping of all cluster rules onto the medoid tree in the Rule Plot. The Feature Plot complements it by aggregating feature frequencies per depth, adding a topological view that the rule distance deliberately discards.

What would settle it

Take two trees from a trained random forest with different numbers of leaves, compute $d(T_1,T_2)$ and $d(T_2,T_1)$ using Eq. (1); if the values differ, recompute the full distance matrix with the symmetrized average and re-run the complete-linkage clustering and MDS. If cluster memberships change materially, the reported cluster structure is an artifact of the one-sided averaging.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that decision trees in a random forest can be meaningfully grouped by a distance that combines semantics and structure: $d(T_1,T_2)$ is the average, over all rules in $T_1$, of the distance to the closest rule in $T_2$ that yields the same class, where rule distance is the average per-feature interval dissimilarity $d_f = 1 - \frac{|I_1 \cap I_2|}{\max(b_1-a_1, b_2-a_2)}$. Because this ignores the order of splits, two trees with the same decision logic but different node order get distance zero, while methods based only on split variables would treat them as different. The distance feeds a complete-linkage hierarchical clustering with dynamic hybrid cuts and an MDS projection, and each cluster is summarized by its medoid tree. The Feature Plot shows feature usage per tree level; the Rule Plot maps every rule of every tree in a cluster to the closest same-class rule of the medoid and visualizes the aggregated feature intervals and classification outcomes. The paper reports that this cluster view, rather than a single summary tree, lets users see how well parts of the data are covered and which tree subgroups drive classifications.

Load-bearing premise

The grouping assumes that the similarity between two trees does not depend on which tree is considered first, but the formula as written averages over only the first tree's rules, so swapping the trees can change the distance.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Users can locate subgroups of trees responsible for specific classes or misclassifications and judge model confidence from cluster sizes and feature patterns.
  • The Feature Plot gives feature importance a topological reading: a feature split early and often across a cluster is more discriminative than one that appears only deep in a few trees.
  • The Rule Plot lets analysts compare rule groups across clusters, see which feature ranges separate classes, and filter to specific feature values or misclassifications while keeping the aggregation stable.
  • The approach scales to large numbers of trees because each tree is reduced to its rule set and only representative trees need deep inspection.
  • The same Feature and Rule Plots can visualize a single decision tree or any classifier that emits decision paths or rules, not only random forests.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A testable extension the paper leaves open: symmetrizing the distance as $(d(T_1,T_2)+d(T_2,T_1))/2$ and re-running the clustering would show whether the reported cluster structure depends on the arbitrary ordering of trees in the forest.
  • Because the rule distance only needs root-to-leaf intervals and class labels, it could plausibly be lifted to boosted tree ensembles or rule lists, a generalization the paper does not claim.
  • A controlled study with a single-summary baseline and an all-trees baseline would be needed to confirm that cluster-level views actually reduce cognitive load; the reported user study is qualitative and has no control condition.
  • The color-based feature encoding limits scaling to datasets with many features; aggregating or selecting features could extend the system, at the cost of the fine-grained inspection the plots currently provide.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper presents a visual analytics system for interpreting random forests by clustering decision trees and visualizing the clusters with two new views, the Feature Plot and the Rule Plot, together with a detailed per-tree view. The proposed tree dissimilarity in Eq. (1) averages, over each rule of one tree, the minimum rule distance to same-class rules of the other tree, where the rule distance combines prediction agreement and per-feature interval overlap. The trees are then clustered with complete-linkage hierarchical clustering and dynamic hybrid cut, projected with MDS, and summarized by a medoid representative. The system is evaluated through a case study on the Glass dataset and a small user study with two participants, with SUS and ICE-T scores. The paper argues that this cluster-based approach is a middle ground between inspecting every tree and collapsing the forest into a single summary tree.

Significance. If the clustering step were well-defined, the approach would be a useful addition to random-forest interpretability: it preserves structural diversity within the forest, visualizes feature usage and decision rules at a cluster level, and the task elicitation in Section 3 grounds the design in real user needs. The Feature Plot and Rule Plot are thoughtful designs, and the Glass case study demonstrates nontrivial insights that go beyond single-tree summaries. However, the central clustering and projection pipeline rests on a pairwise dissimilarity that is asymmetric as defined in Eq. (1), while the paper feeds it into symmetric-input methods without any stated symmetrization. The current manuscript therefore does not yet establish a sound basis for the clusters, projections, and medoid representatives on which the entire interpretation workflow depends.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4, Eq. (1)] The dissimilarity in Eq. (1) is not symmetric: d(T1,T2) = (1/|R(T1)|) * sum_{ri in R(T1)} min_{rj in R(T2)} dR(ri,rj) averages over the rules of T1 only, while d(T2,T1) averages over the rules of T2. The two values generally differ, even when the trees have the same number of leaves, because min-assignment is not symmetric. Sections 4 and 5.1 then feed this matrix into complete-linkage hierarchical clustering and MDS without describing any symmetrization step, although both methods require symmetric dissimilarities. This is not a corner case: decision trees in a scikit-learn random forest on the Glass dataset vary in size. Consequently, the dendrogram, the dynamic hybrid cut, the cluster memberships, the MDS projection, and the medoid representatives are under-specified and may depend on an arbitrary orientation or storage convention. The authors should either explicitly symmetrize the matrix (for example by taking the maximum, minimum, or average of the two directed values) and justify the choice, or explain how they handled the directed matrix.
  2. [Section 4 and contribution 1] The paper repeatedly calls Eq. (1) a 'distance metric' (Section 4, the abstract, and the list of contributions). As defined it is not a metric: it is asymmetric and, even after symmetrization, it is not established that it satisfies the triangle inequality. I recommend using the term 'dissimilarity measure' or 'distance measure' throughout, and reserving 'metric' for a quantity that has been verified to satisfy the metric axioms.
  3. [Section 6.2] The user study includes only two participants, and the reported SUS and ICE-T scores are given as raw values without statistical analysis or a comparison to a baseline. In particular, the sentence in Section 8 that the 'case and user study demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach' is stronger than the evidence supports. The case study is informative, but the user-study component should either be framed as a pilot usability probe or be supplemented with a more systematic assessment, such as task-completion measurements, a formal comparison with an existing random-forest visualization or distance method, or a larger participant sample.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 4] There is a typo in the first paragraph: 'the set of of rules' should be 'the set of rules'.
  2. [Section 4] The text 'includesemanticas well asstructural components' is missing spaces in the author version; please correct the formatting in the final version.
  3. [Section 5.1] The statement that MDS 'truthfully reflects the relative distances between the trees' is too strong; MDS only approximates pairwise distances and the approximation error (stress) should be mentioned or shown.
  4. [Section 6.2] The grammar in 'the SUS survey results in a score of (70 and 82.5)' should be revised, for example to 'the SUS survey resulted in scores of 70 and 82.5'.
  5. [Section 5.1] The choice of MDS over other dimensionality-reduction methods is motivated only briefly; a sentence on why the projection is faithful enough for cluster interpretation would help readers assess the influence of projection stress on the cluster hulls.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the distance metric, clustering, and visualizations are defined from first principles and are independent of the outcomes they are used to interpret.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained rather than circular. The tree distance in Eq. (1) is explicitly constructed from the rule sets of the trees, with the rule distance in Eq. (2) and interval distance in Eq. (3) defined directly; these are definitions, not fitted parameters. Clustering applies standard methods (complete linkage, dynamic hybrid cut, MDS) to this distance matrix, and the Feature Plot and Rule Plot aggregate the resulting clusters without feeding any downstream outcome back into the metric. The evaluation uses external data ('Glass' and 'Penguin') and a qualitative user study, so the reported insights are not predictions of quantities that were used to fit the method. The only self-citation, Sondag et al. [51], is explicitly used as inspiration ('inspired by the work of Sondag et al. [51] we identify clusters of trees based on behavioral characteristics') and carries no mathematical load; no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from the authors' prior work. The paper's own limitation statement that 'the cluster-based approach ... depends on the quality of the clustering algorithm and the chosen distance metric' is an honest caveat rather than a circular step. The asymmetry of Eq. (1) noted by the reader is a potential correctness or under-specification issue for the downstream MDS and hierarchical clustering, but it does not make the derivation circular, because the outputs are not equivalent to the inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The approach introduces no new physical or mathematical entities. The main load-bearing assumptions are about the suitability of the rule-based distance for clustering and the representativeness of the evaluation. The free parameters are mostly interaction choices in the clustering and visualization, not fitted to data.

free parameters (3)
  • minimum cluster size (minClusterSize)
    Controls the number of clusters produced by the dynamic hybrid cut; default is chosen by an elbow-like heuristic, and users can adjust it interactively.
  • dynamic hybrid cut parameters = not specified
    Parameters such as deepSplit and other cut controls are not stated; they affect cluster assignments and hence the visualization.
  • Rule Plot heatmap width cap = 10
    Rule widths are scaled by number of classifications, capped at factor 10 to keep lesser-used rules visible; design choice that affects visual encoding, not the distance metric.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption A decision tree can be faithfully represented as a set of rules (root-to-leaf paths).
    Stated at the start of Section 4 and underlies the rule-based distance; it ignores tree topology such as split order.
  • domain assumption Comparing only rules with the same predicted class is sufficient for meaningful tree similarity.
    Section 4: 'we only compare rules that lead to the same predictions to include the semantic component.' This assumes same-class comparison captures semantics.
  • ad hoc to paper d(T1,T2) in Eq. (1) can be used as a symmetric dissimilarity for MDS and complete-linkage clustering.
    The formula is asymmetric unless |R(T1)| = |R(T2)| or symmetrization is applied; no symmetrization is described, yet MDS and hierarchical clustering need symmetric input.
  • domain assumption The datasets used (Glass, Penguin) are representative for evaluating random forest interpretability tools.
    Section 6 claims these give 'a representative indication of efficacy'; this is an evaluation assumption, not proven.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Cluster-Based Random Forest Visualization and Interpretation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YQLKRTN5

@misc{pith2026250722665,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Cluster-Based Random Forest Visualization and Interpretation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YQLKRTN5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.22665}
}
read the original abstract

Random forests are a machine learning method used to automatically classify datasets and consist of a multitude of decision trees. While these random forests often have higher performance and generalize better than a single decision tree, they are also harder to interpret. This paper presents a visualization method and system to increase interpretability of random forests. We cluster similar trees which enables users to interpret how the model performs in general without needing to analyze each individual decision tree in detail, or interpret an oversimplified summary of the full forest. To meaningfully cluster the decision trees, we introduce a new distance metric that takes into account both the decision rules as well as the predictions of a pair of decision trees. We also propose two new visualization methods that visualize both clustered and individual decision trees: (1) The Feature Plot, which visualizes the topological position of features in the decision trees, and (2) the Rule Plot, which visualizes the decision rules of the decision trees. We demonstrate the efficacy of our approach through a case study on the "Glass" dataset, which is a relatively complex standard machine learning dataset, as well as a small user study.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.22665 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. An overview of the visual analytics system. A) shows global information such as feature and class distribution, model accuracy, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Two trees with a different order of split points but the same rules. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. A Rule Plot that shows the decision trees in one cluster. Aggre [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The Feature Plot visualizes the distribution of features in a (cluster [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: A single decision tree from the “Penguin” dataset. Internal nodes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Filtering based on bill depth below 15. In both the Feature Plot (top) and Rule Plot (bottom), decision rules and path that cannot have bill depth below 15 are hidden. In the Feature Plot we see the updated distribution of features, showing that all features remain rel…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The clusters with different features of importance shown. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

71 extracted references · 43 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Adilova, M

    L. Adilova, M. Kamp, G. Andrienko, and N. Andrienko. Re-interpreting rules interpretability.International Journal of Data Science and Analytics, pp. 1–21, 2023. doi: 10.1007/s41060-023-00398-5 3

    work page doi:10.1007/s41060-023-00398-5 2023

  2. [2]

    Ankerst, M

    M. Ankerst, M. Ester, and H.-P. Kriegel. Towards an effective cooperation of the user and the computer for classification. InProceedings of the Sixth ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, 10 pages, pp. 179—-188. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY , USA, 2000. doi: 10.1145/347090.347124 2

    arXiv

  3. [4]

    M. Aria, C. Cuccurullo, and A. Gnasso. A comparison among interpreta- tive proposals for random forests.Machine Learning with Applications, 6:100094, 2021. doi: 10.1016/j.mlwa.2021.100094 2, 3

    arXiv 2021

  4. [5]

    M. Aria, A. Gnasso, C. Iorio, and G. Pandolfo. Explainable ensemble trees.Computational Statistics, pp. 3–19, 2023. doi: 10.1007/s00180-022 -01312-6 3

    work page doi:10.1007/s00180-022 2023

  5. [6]

    Bakirli and D

    G. Bakirli and D. Birant. Dtreesim: A new approach to compute decision tree similarity using re-mining.Turkish Journal of Electrical Engineering and Computer Sciences, 25(1):108–125, 2017. doi: 10.3906/elk-1504-234 3, 4

    work page doi:10.3906/elk-1504-234 2017

  6. [7]

    Banerjee, Y

    M. Banerjee, Y . Ding, and A.-M. Noone. Identifying representative trees from ensembles.Statistics in Medicine, 31(15):1601–1616, 2012. doi: 10. 1002/sim.4492 3, 4

    work page 2012

  7. [8]

    Barlow and P

    T. Barlow and P. Neville. Case study: visualization for decision tree analysis in data mining. InIEEE Symposium on Information Visualization, pp. 149–152, 2001. doi: 10.1109/INFVIS.2001.963292 1, 2

    work page arXiv 2001

  8. [9]

    Bouchet, M

    A. Bouchet, M. Sesma-Sara, G. Ochoa, H. Bustince, S. Montes, and I. Díaz. Measures of embedding for interval-valued fuzzy sets.Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 467:108505, 2023. doi: 10.1016/j.fss.2023.03.008 4

    work page doi:10.1016/j.fss.2023.03.008 2023

Show all 71 references
  1. [10]

    L. Breiman. Random forests.Machine learning, 45:5–32, 2001. doi: 10. 1023/A:1010933404324 1

    2001

  2. [11]

    Bremm, T

    S. Bremm, T. von Landesberger, M. Heß, T. Schreck, P. Weil, and K. Hamacherk. Interactive visual comparison of multiple trees. InIEEE Conference on Visual Analytics Science and Technology, pp. 31–40, 2011. doi: 10.1109/V AST.2011.6102439 2

    2011

  3. [12]

    J. Brooke. Sus-a quick and dirty usability scale.Usability evaluation in industry, 189(194):1–6, 1996. doi: 10.1201/9781498710411-35 2, 8

    1996 doi

  4. [13]

    Chatzimparmpas, R

    A. Chatzimparmpas, R. M. Martins, I. Jusufi, K. Kucher, F. Rossi, and A. Kerren. The state of the art in enhancing trust in machine learning models with the use of visualizations. InComputer Graphics Forum, vol. 39, pp. 713–756. Wiley Online Library, 2020. doi: 10.1111/cgf.14034 1

    2020 doi

  5. [14]

    Chatzimparmpas, R

    A. Chatzimparmpas, R. M. Martins, and A. Kerren. Visruler: Visual analytics for extracting decision rules from bagged and boosted decision trees.Information Visualization, 22(2):115–139, 2023. doi: 10.1177/ 14738716221142005 1, 2, 3, 7

    2023

  6. [15]

    C.-h. Chen, W. Härdle, A. Unwin, and S. Urbanek. Visualizing trees and forests.Handbook of data visualization, pp. 243–264, 2008. doi: 10. 1007/978-3-540-33037-0_11 2

    2008

  7. [16]

    H. A. Chipman, E. I. George, and R. E. McCulloch. Extracting repre- sentative tree models from a forest.IPT Group, IT Division, CERN, pp. 363–377, 1998. 3, 4

    1998

  8. [17]

    Eirich, M

    J. Eirich, M. Münch, D. Jäckle, M. Sedlmair, J. Bonart, and T. Schreck. Rfx: a design study for the interactive exploration of a random forest to enhance testing procedures for electrical engines. InComputer Graphics Forum, vol. 41, pp. 302–315. Wiley Online Library, 2022. doi...

    2022 doi

  9. [18]

    Elmqvist and J

    N. Elmqvist and J. Fekete. Hierarchical aggregation for information visual- ization: Overview, techniques, and design guidelines.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 16(3):439–454, 2009. doi: 10. 1109/TVCG.2009.84 2

    2009

  10. [19]

    V . A. Epanechnikov. Non-parametric estimation of a multivariate proba- bility density.Theory of Probability & its Applications, 14(1):153–158,

  11. [20]

    Everitt, S

    B. Everitt, S. Landau, M. Leese, and D. Stahl.Hierarchical Clustering, chap. 4, pp. 71–110. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 2011. doi: 10.1002/ 9780470977811.ch4 4

    2011

  12. [21]

    B. German. Glass Identification. UCI Machine Learning Repository, 1987. doi: 10.24432/C5WW2P. 2, 5, 7

    1987 doi

  13. [22]

    Graham and J

    M. Graham and J. Kennedy. A survey of multiple tree visualisation. Information Visualization, 9(4):235–252, 2009. doi: 10.1057/ivs.2009.29 2

    2009 doi

  14. [23]

    Grinsztajn, E

    L. Grinsztajn, E. Oyallon, and G. Varoquaux. Why do tree-based models still outperform deep learning on typical tabular data?Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35:507–520, 2022. doi: 10.48550/arXiv. 2207.08815 1

    2022 doi arXiv

  15. [24]

    Han and N

    J. Han and N. Cercone. Ruleviz: a model for visualizing knowledge discovery process. InProceedings of the sixth ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, pp. 244–253, 2000. doi: 10.1145/347090.347139 2

  16. [26]

    A. M. Horst, A. P. Hill, and K. B. Gorman.palmerpenguins: Palmer Archipelago (Antarctica) penguin data, 2020. doi: 10.5281/zenodo. 3960218 5, 7

    2020 doi

  17. [27]

    V . Y . Kulkarni and P. K. Sinha. Pruning of random forest classifiers: A survey and future directions. InInternational Conference on Data Science & Engineering, pp. 64–68. IEEE, 2012. doi: 10.1109/icdse.2012.6282329 2

    2012

  18. [28]

    Laabs, A

    B.-H. Laabs, A. Westenberger, and I. R. König. Identification of represen- tative trees in random forests based on a new tree-based distance measure. Advances in Data Analysis and Classification, pp. 1–18, 2023. doi: 10. 1007/s11634-023-00537-7 3, 4, 9

    2023

  19. [29]

    Langfelder, B

    P. Langfelder, B. Zhang, and S. Horvath. Defining clusters from a hier- archical cluster tree: the dynamic tree cut package for r.Bioinformatics, 24(5):719–720, 2008. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btm563 4

    2008 doi

  20. [30]

    V . I. Levenshtein et al. Binary codes capable of correcting deletions, insertions, and reversals. InSoviet Physics Doklady, vol. 10, pp. 707–710. Soviet Union, 1966. 3

    1966

  21. [31]

    G. Li, Y . Zhang, Y . Dong, J. Liang, J. Zhang, J. Wang, M. J. McGuffin, and X. Yuan. Barcodetree: Scalable comparison of multiple hierarchies.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 26(1):1022–1032,

  22. [32]

    Liu and G

    Y . Liu and G. Salvendy. Design and evaluation of visualization support to facilitate decision trees classification.International Journal of Human- Computer Studies, 65:95–110, 02 2007. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhcs.2006.07.005 2

    2007 doi

  23. [33]

    Z. Liu, S. H. Zhan, and T. Munzner. Aggregated dendrograms for visual comparison between many phylogenetic trees.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 26(9):2732–2747, 2020. doi: 10. 1109/TVCG.2019.2898186 2

    2020

  24. [34]

    Mazumdar, M

    D. Mazumdar, M. P. Neto, and F. V . Paulovich. Random forest similarity maps: A scalable visual representation for global and local interpretation. Electronics, 10(22):2862, 2021. doi: 10.3390/electronics10222862 3

    2021 doi

  25. [35]

    Maçãs, J

    C. Maçãs, J. R. Campos, N. Lourenço, and P. Machado. Visualisation of random forest classification.Information Visualization, 23(4):312–327,

  26. [36]

    Médoc, V

    N. Médoc, V . Ciorna, F. Petry, and M. Ghoniem. Visualizing prediction provenance in regression random forests. InEuroVis (Posters), pp. 75–77. The Eurographics Association, 2022. doi: 10.2312/evp.20221124 2, 3

    2022 doi

  27. [37]

    L. Meng, S. van den Elzen, and A. Vilanova. Modelwise: Interactive model comparison for model diagnosis, improvement and selection.Computer Graphics Forum, 41(3):97–108, 2022. doi: 10.1111/cgf.14525 2

    2022 doi

  28. [38]

    Y . Ming, H. Qu, and E. Bertini. Rulematrix: Visualizing and understanding classifiers with rules.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 25(1):342–352, 2018. doi: 10.1109/tvcg.2018.2864812 2

    2018

  29. [39]

    Mühlbacher, L

    T. Mühlbacher, L. Linhardt, T. Möller, and H. Piringer. Treepod: Sensitivity-aware selection of pareto-optimal decision trees.IEEE Trans- actions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 24(1):174–183, 2017. doi: 10.1109/tvcg.2017.2745158 2, 3

    2017

  30. [40]

    Munzner, F

    T. Munzner, F. Guimbretière, S. Tasiran, L. Zhang, and Y . Zhou. Treejux- taposer: scalable tree comparison using focus+context with guaranteed visibility. InSIGGRAPH, pp. 453––462. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY , USA, 2003. doi: 10.1145/1201775.882291 2

    2003

  31. [41]

    M. P. Neto and F. V . Paulovich. Explainable matrix-visualization for global and local interpretability of random forest classification ensembles.IEEE 10 © 2025 IEEE. This is the author’s version of the article that has been published in IEEE Transactions on Visualization and ...

    2025

  32. [42]

    Palczewska, J

    A. Palczewska, J. Palczewski, R. Marchese Robinson, and D. Neagu. In- terpreting random forest classification models using a feature contribution method.Integration of Reusable Systems, pp. 193–218, 2014. doi: 10. 1007/978-3-319-04717-1_9 3

    2014

  33. [43]

    Pedregosa, G

    F. Pedregosa, G. Varoquaux, A. Gramfort, V . Michel, B. Thirion, O. Grisel, M. Blondel, P. Prettenhofer, R. Weiss, V . Dubourg, J. Vanderplas, A. Pas- sos, D. Cournapeau, M. Brucher, M. Perrot, and E. Duchesnay. Scikit- learn: Machine learning in Python.Journal of Machine Lear...

    2011 doi arXiv

  34. [44]

    N. Rico, P. Huidobro, A. Bouchet, and I. Díaz. Similarity measures for interval-valued fuzzy sets based on average embeddings and its application to hierarchical clustering.Information Sciences, 615:794–812, 2022. doi: 10.1016/j.ins.2022.10.028 4

    2022 doi

  35. [45]

    Sagi and L

    O. Sagi and L. Rokach. Explainable decision forest: Transforming a decision forest into an interpretable tree.Information Fusion, 61:124–138,

  36. [46]

    I. H. Sarker. Machine learning: Algorithms, real-world applications and research directions.SN Computer Science, 2(3):160, 2021. doi: 10.1007/ s42979-021-00592-x 1

    2021

  37. [47]

    Sauro and J

    J. Sauro and J. R. Lewis.Quantifying the user experience: Practical statistics for user research. Morgan Kaufmann, 2012. doi: 10.1016/C2010 -0-65192-3 9

    2012 doi

  38. [48]

    Schulz, S

    H. Schulz, S. Hadlak, and H. Schumann. The design space of implicit hierarchy visualization: A survey.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 17(4):393–411, April 2011. doi: 10.1109/TVCG .2010.79 2

    2011 doi

  39. [49]

    W. D. Shannon and D. Banks. Combining classification trees using mle. Statistics in Medicine, 18(6):727–740, 1999. doi: 10.1002/(sici)1097-0258 (19990330)18:6<727::aid-sim61>3.0.co;2-2 3

    1999 doi

  40. [50]

    doi: 10.1016/j.inffus.2020.03.013 1

    2020 doi

  41. [51]

    Sondag, C

    M. Sondag, C. Turkay, K. Xu, L. Matthews, S. Mohr, and D. Archambault. Visual analytics of contact tracing policy simulations during an emergency response.Computer Graphics Forum, 41(3):29–41, 2022. doi: 10.1111/ cgf.14520 3

    2022

  42. [52]

    C. D. Stolper, A. Perer, and D. Gotz. Progressive visual analytics: User- driven visual exploration of in-progress analytics.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 20(12):1653–1662, 2014. doi: 10. 1109/tvcg.2014.2346574 9

    2014

  43. [53]

    Streeb, Y

    D. Streeb, Y . Metz, U. Schlegel, B. Schneider, M. El-Assady, H. Neth, M. Chen, and D. A. Keim. Task-based visual interactive modeling: deci- sion trees and rule-based classifiers.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 28(9):3307–3323, 2021. doi: 10.1109/tvc...

    2021 doi

  44. [54]

    S. Tan, M. Soloviev, G. Hooker, and M. T. Wells. Tree space prototypes: Another look at making tree ensembles interpretable. InProceedings of ACM-IMS on Foundations of Data Science Conference, pp. 23–34, 2020. doi: 10.1145/3412815.3416893 3

    2020

  45. [55]

    B. W. Silverman.Density estimation for statistics and data analysis. Routledge, 2018. doi: 10.1201/9781315140919 4

    2018 doi

  46. [56]

    van den Elzen and J

    S. van den Elzen and J. J. van Wijk. Baobabview: Interactive construction and analysis of decision trees. InIEEE Conference on Visual Analytics Science and Technology, pp. 151–160, 2011. doi: 10.1109/V AST.2011. 6102453 1, 2, 3, 6

    2011 doi

  47. [57]

    van Der Ploeg

    A. van Der Ploeg. Drawing non-layered tidy trees in linear time.Software: Practice and Experience, 44(12):1467–1484, 2013. doi: 10.1002/spe.2213 6

    2013 doi

  48. [58]

    Vidal and M

    T. Vidal and M. Schiffer. Born-again tree ensembles. InInternational Conference on Machine Learning, pp. 9743–9753. PMLR, 2020. doi: 10. 48550/arXiv.2003.11132 1

    2020 doi arXiv

  49. [59]

    V ogogias, J

    A. V ogogias, J. Kennedy, D. Archaumbault, V . A. Smith, and H. Currant. Mlcut: Exploring multi-level cuts in dendrograms for biological data. InComputer Graphics and Visual Computing Conference. Eurographics Association, 2016. doi: 10.2312/cgvc.20161288 9

    2016 doi

  50. [60]

    S. T. Teoh and K.-L. Ma. Paintingclass: interactive construction, visualiza- tion and exploration of decision trees. InProceedings of the Ninth ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, pp. 667—-672. Association for Computing Machinery, 2003. ...

    2003

  51. [61]

    Z. J. Wang, C. Zhong, R. Xin, T. Takagi, Z. Chen, D. H. Chau, C. Rudin, and M. Seltzer. Timbertrek: Exploring and curating sparse decision trees with interactive visualization. InIEEE Visualization and Visual Analytics, pp. 60–64. IEEE, 2022. doi: 10.1109/vis54862.2022.00021 2, 3

    2022

  52. [62]

    S. H. Welling, H. H. F. Refsgaard, P. B. Brockhoff, and L. H. Clemmensen. Forest floor visualizations of random forests.CoRR, abs/1605.09196,

    arXiv

  53. [63]

    Willett, J

    W. Willett, J. Heer, and M. Agrawala. Scented widgets: Improving navigation cues with embedded visualizations.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 13(6):1129–1136, 2007. doi: 10. 1109/tvcg.2007.70589 4

    2007

  54. [64]

    Worland, S

    A. Worland, S. Wagle, and B. Kovalerchuk. Visualization of decision trees based on general line coordinates to support explainable models. In26th International Conference Information Visualisation, pp. 351–358. IEEE,

  55. [65]

    E. Wall, M. Agnihotri, L. Matzen, K. Divis, M. Haass, A. Endert, and J. Stasko. A heuristic approach to value-driven evaluation of visualizations. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 25(1):491– 500, 2018. doi: 10.1109/tvcg.2018.2865146 2, 8, 9

    2018

  56. [66]

    Zheng and F

    B. Zheng and F. Sadlo. On the visualization of hierarchical multivariate data. InProceedings of IEEE Pacific Visualization Symposium, pp. 131– 140, 2021. doi: 10.1109/PacificVis52677.2021.00026 2 11

    2021

  57. [72]

    X. Zhao, Y . Wu, D. L. Lee, and W. Cui. iforest: Interpreting random forests via visual analytics.IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 25(1):407–416, 2018. doi: 10.1109/tvcg.2018.2864475 1, 3, 7

    2018

  58. [1969]

    doi: 10.1137/1114019 4

    doi

  59. [2016]

    doi: 10.48550/arXiv.1605.09196 3

    doi arXiv

  60. [2019]

    doi: 10.1109/tvcg.2019.2934535 2

    2019

  61. [2020]

    doi: 10.1109/tvcg.2020.3030354 1, 3

    2020

  62. [2022]

    doi: 10.1109/iv56949.2022.00065 2

    2022

  63. [2024]

    doi: 10.1177/14738716241260745 1

    doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.