4.5 Article

Unbiased recursive partitioning: A conditional inference framework

Journal

JOURNAL OF COMPUTATIONAL AND GRAPHICAL STATISTICS
Volume 15, Issue 3, Pages 651-674

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1198/106186006X133933

Keywords

multiple testing; multivariate regression trees; ordinal regression trees; permutation tests; variable selection

Ask authors/readers for more resources

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 over-fitting 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.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available