The Most Important Features in Generalized Additive Models Might Be Groups of Features

Tomas M. Bosschieter; Luis Franca; Jessica Wolk; Yiyuan Wu; Bella Mehta; Joseph Dehoney; Orsolya Kiss; Fiona C. Baker; Qingyu Zhao; Rich Caruana; Kilian M. Pohl

arXiv · 2506.19937

The Most Important Features in Generalized Additive Models Might Be Groups of Features

Tomas M. Bosschieter·Luis Franca·Jessica Wolk·Yiyuan Wu·Bella Mehta·Joseph Dehoney·Orsolya Kiss·Fiona C. Baker·Qingyu Zhao·Rich Caruana·Kilian M. Pohl

View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

While analyzing the importance of features has become ubiquitous in interpretable machine learning, the joint signal from a group of related features is sometimes overlooked or inadvertently excluded. Neglecting the joint signal could bypass a critical insight: in many instances, the most significant predictors are not isolated features, but rather the combined effect of groups of features. This can be especially problematic for datasets that contain natural groupings of features, including multimodal datasets. This paper introduces a novel approach to determine the importance of a group of features for Generalized Additive Models (GAMs) that is efficient, requires no model retraining, allows defining groups posthoc, permits overlapping groups, and remains meaningful in high-dimensional settings. Moreover, this definition offers a parallel with explained variation in statistics. We showcase properties of our method on three synthetic experiments that illustrate the behavior of group importance across various data regimes. We then demonstrate the importance of groups of features in identifying depressive symptoms from a multimodal neuroscience dataset, and study the importance of social determinants of health after total hip arthroplasty. These two case studies reveal that analyzing group importance offers a more accurate, holistic view of the medical issues compared to a single-feature analysis.

Explore related subjects

cs.LG

Keep this discovery

BibTeX RIS

Tomas M. Bosschieter, Luis Franca, Jessica Wolk, Yiyuan Wu, Bella Mehta, Joseph Dehoney, Orsolya Kiss, Fiona C. Baker, Qingyu Zhao, Rich Caruana, Kilian M. Pohl. 2025-06-24. The Most Important Features in Generalized Additive Models Might Be Groups of Features. https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.19937

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

AUC Maximization from Biased Positive-unlabeled Data with Confidence

Maximizing the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) is a standard approach to imbalanced binary classification. Although positive and negative data are required for maximizing the AUC, negative data are often difficult to collect in some real-world applications due to privacy concerns or the need for specialized expertise to annotate them. Thus, AUC maximization from positive and unlabeled (PU) data has been attracting attention. Existing methods assume that labeled positive data are unbiased samples from the true positive distribution. However, this ideal assumption is often violated in practice. In this paper, we propose a method to maximize the AUC from biased PU data. To address the bias, our key idea is to exploit {\it confidence}, i.e., the probability that an instance is positive, associated with the small number of labeled positive data. We derive an estimator of the AUC risk using biased PU data with confidence, enabling AUC maximization under such bias. We further show that the rewritten AUC risk induces a Bayes-optimal AUC ranking even when the available confidence is any strictly increasing transformation of the true posterior probability. We experimentally show the effectiveness of our method on eight real-world datasets.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2026

Measuring the Value of World-Model Updates: A Counterfactual Utility Protocol for Continual Adaptation

Continual world models must decide whether new data justify changing the model. Fixed replay schedules and prediction-error triggers specify when to update, but neither reveals the value of an individual update: one deployment run cannot show how the same model would have performed at that moment had it held its parameters. We introduce the fork ledger, which branches a deployment stream at pre-registered decision points into matched update and hold continuations under common random numbers. It evaluates both continuations on the same episodes and records $\Delta R = R_{\mathrm{update}} - R_{\mathrm{hold}}$. Always applying one fixed update mechanism lowers return on all three simulated control tasks: CartPole ($-144.0$; checkpoint-bootstrap $95\%$ CI $[-185.4,-116.1]$, against a converged return near $650$), Walker ($-82.8$; $[-101.1,-61.7]$) and Cheetah ($-18.6$; $[-29.0,-6.6]$). Divergence is an outcome of applying the update, so the estimand counts every attempted fork; restricted to the $693$ of $720$ that did not collapse, CartPole and Walker are unchanged in sign ($-113.4$ and $-82.1$) and Cheetah becomes unresolved ($-3.9$; $[-17.5,+13.0]$). The task is the unit of inference: each contributes $240$ attempted forks over five pretrained checkpoints crossed with two drift directions. The ledger makes counterfactual utility observable for a fixed mechanism, allowing triggers to be judged by the updates they select rather than by surprise detection alone.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2026

When More Is Not Better: Component Anti-Synergy in a P300 Speller

P300 brain-computer interface (BCI) spellers can provide hands-free communication for people with severe motor impairments. Modern pipelines combine multiple individually promising components, often assuming that 'more-is-better'. We tested this assumption using a four-component full-factorial experiment varying the inclusion of Euclidean Alignment (EA), xDAWN spatial filtering, subject calibration, and language model priors on a public P300 dataset. Performance was evaluated using accuracy, repetitions, and information transfer rate (ITR) with mixed-effects models. Results show that the value of components is conditional rather than additive. Calibration was the strongest singular contributor, while EA compensated for its absence in zero-calibration settings. Adding independently useful components could also reduce performance, revealing component anti-synergy. Contrary to conventional wisdom, LM support was not universally beneficial: its effect depends strongly on the strength of the underlying EEG pipeline, while results from a larger LM showed a similar pattern. Together, these findings challenge maximal 'all-on' pipeline design and highlight the value of selecting spatial and language-support components according to the quality of available EEG evidence.

cs.LG↗