Leaf Values as Coordinates: Exact Contrastive Explanation for Gradient-Boosted Ensembles

Credit scoring increasingly relies on models whose decision logic cannot be read off their parameters, in tension with supervisory expectations that adverse decisions be explainable. A common proposal closes that gap with a language model: compute feature attributions, hand them to an LLM, and let it write the rationale. We build such a system end to end and test whether the second half of the promise holds. The predictive component is a multi-scale stacking ensemble fusing four differently regularised gradient-boosting learners with a residual network through a neural meta-learner trained on out-of-fold predictions. On a public 32,581-application credit dataset it reaches test ROC-AUC 0.9539 (95% CI [0.9462, 0.9616]) and PR-AUC 0.9137, beating the best single model by Delta-AUC = 0.0143 (p = 0.016 under a conservative independence assumption). Our central finding is asymmetric. The ranking gain is real but operationally small: at the F1-optimal threshold the ensemble avoids only six additional missed defaults out of 1,422 against a tuned random forest, cutting cost-weighted loss by under 2%. The narrative layer fails in a way prompt engineering alone does not fix. In an audited case the model named three factors as risk-increasing that the supplied attributions scored as risk-reducing, omitted the dominant driver, and introduced a feature never given to it. We trace this to properties we measure rather than assume: SHAP and LIME agree on which features matter (overlap@10 = 0.80) but not on their order (tau = 0.43, p = 0.18), and the attribution sign for the model's most sensitive input is near a coin flip across applicants (modal-sign share 0.53). Calibration (ECS = 0.117) and perturbation stability (DPD = 0.078) both fall short of our own thresholds. Constrained prompting is necessary but not sufficient: grounding must be verified after generation, not assumed.

Predictive models in clinical and regulated settings must be accurate and fully auditable. Tree ensembles deliver strong accuracy on tabular data, but their sequential boosting couples structure discovery with coefficient estimation, making compact per-prediction auditing difficult. Interpretable alternatives impose structural constraints that limit expressiveness: generalized additive models typically restrict interactions to pairwise terms and post-hoc rule extractors produce overlapping rules that hinder compact interpretation. We introduce Residual Pattern Tree Ensemble (RPTE), a three-stage learning approach, that is built on three key principles: bounded feature budget, source disjointness, and separate coefficient estimation. Stage1 builds a supervised symbolic feature vocabulary. Stage2 grows shallow trees under a source-disjointness constraint, where each raw variable is allocated to at most one tree, and retains only the discovered tree structures. Stage~3 solves a single $\ell_1$-regularized logistic regression over leaf-region indicators, yielding jointly optimal sparse coefficients. This learning approach ensures that every prediction decomposes into an algebraic sum of named, non-overlapping rule contributions, enabling full auditability by design. Empirical evaluation on twelve clinical-domain binary classification benchmarks using repeated stratified 5-fold cross-validation shows that RPTE performs competitively against tuned opaque ensembles and interpretable baselines. RPTE reduces model inspection units by 9$\times$ to 87$\times$ relative to XGBoost and maintains lower audit complexity than EBM on all 12 datasets. RuleFit requires comparable or fewer inspection units on three datasets where its rule count is small, but without source-disjointness guarantees. The source code is available at this https URL.

Trust in counterfactual explanations depends critically on whether their recommended changes are truly minimal: suboptimal explanations may vastly overshoot the actual changes needed to alter a decision, and heuristic errors can affect individuals unevenly, giving some users relevant recourse while assigning others unnecessarily costly recommendations. Consequently, we study the problem of computing optimal counterfactual explanations for tree ensembles under plausibility and actionability constraints. This is a combinatorial problem: for a fixed model, counterfactual search boils down to selecting consistent branching decisions and threshold-defined regions under a distance objective. We exploit this structure through CPCF, a constraint programming (CP) formulation in which numerical features are encoded as interval domains induced by split thresholds, while discrete features retain native finite-domain representations. This yields a compact finite-domain formulation that supports multiple distance objectives without continuous split-boundary search. We then place CPCF in a broader comparison across mathematical programming paradigms: we extend a maximum Boolean satisfiability (MaxSAT) formulation, originally designed for hard-voting random forests, to soft-voting ensembles, and compare against the current state-of-the-art mixed-integer linear programming (MILP) optimal approach. Across ten datasets and three types of tree ensembles, we analyze scalability, anytime performance, and sensitivity to distance metrics. We observe that CP achieves the best overall performance. More importantly, our results identify regimes in which the specific strengths of each paradigm make it best suited: CP is most versatile overall, MaxSAT handles hard-voting ensembles particularly well, and MILP remains competitive in amortized inference settings with a moderate number of split levels.