A comparison among interpretative proposals for Random Forests

The growing success of Machine Learning (ML) is making significant improvements to predictive models, facilitating their integration in various application fields. Despite its growing success, there are some limitations and disadvantages: the most significant is the lack of interpretability that does not allow users to understand how particular decisions are made. Our study focus on one of the best performing and most used models in the Machine Learning framework, the Random Forest model. It is known as an efficient model of ensemble learning, as it ensures high predictive precision, flexibility, and immediacy; it is recognized as an intuitive and understandable approach to the construction process, but it is also considered a Black Box model due to the large number of deep decision trees produced within it. The aim of this research is twofold. We present a survey about interpretative proposal for Random Forest and then we perform a machine learning experiment providing a comparison between two methodologies, inTrees, and NodeHarvest, that represent the main approaches in the rule extraction framework. The proposed experiment compares methods performance on six real datasets covering different data characteristics: n. of observations, balanced/unbalanced response, the presence of categorical and numerical predictors. This study contributes to picture a review of the methods and tools proposed for ensemble tree interpretation, and identify, in the class of rule extraction approaches, the best proposal.