Sparse Oblique Rule Boosting for Simpler Additive Rule Ensembles
Authors: Shahrzad Behzadimanesh, Pierre Le Bodic, Geoffrey I. Webb, Mario Boley
Organizations: Department of Data Science and Artificial Intelligence, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia. · Department of Information Systems, University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel.
Small additive ensembles of symbolic rules offer interpretable prediction models. Traditionally, these ensembles use rule conditions based on conjunctions of simple threshold propositions x≥t on a single input variable x and threshold t, resulting geometrically in axis-parallel polytopes as decision regions. While this form ensures a high degree of interpretability for individual rules and can be learned efficiently using the gradient boosting approach, it relies on having access to a curated set of expressive input features so that a small ensemble of axis-parallel regions can describe the target variable well. Absent such features, reaching sufficient accuracy requires increasing the number and complexity of individual rules, which diminishes the interpretability of the model. Here, we extend classical rule ensembles by introducing logical propositions with learnable sparse linear transformations of input variables, i.e., propositions of the form xTw≥t, where w is a learnable sparse weight vector, enabling decision regions as general polyhedrons with oblique faces. We propose a learning method using gradient boosting based on a weighted logistic regression. Empirical results across 14 regression and classification tasks demonstrate that the proposed method achieves lower model complexity than competitive baselines while maintaining similar or better predictive accuracy. Hence, the approach provides a favorable trade-off between interpretability and accuracy and reduces the reliance on manual feature engineering.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Standard axis-parallel rule ensemble for modeling propensity to diabetes based on the 2017-18 CDC NHANES survey ( National Center for Health Statistics, 2020 ) ( left ) versus the proposed simple polyhedron conditions ( right ). In conjunction with log-transforms the proposed model enables learning ratio conditions, which are used here to represent the concept of body-mass-index—leading to approx. identical log loss with a simpler rule ensemble.
Figure 2: Decision regions of rules generated by linear transformation learning and traditional gradient boosting for synthetic data with ground truth decision boundary given by x1+x2=0 .
Sparse Logistic Linear Transformation Boosting
-4.54
if
True
+6.84
if
(0.86 pet_length - sep_width ≥ -0.5) AND ( pet_width ≤ 1.8) AND ( pet_length ≤ 5.2)
(0.78 sep_width -0.56 pet_length +1.31 pet_width > 1.7) AND
Table 1: Rules generated by different methods on the Iris dataset (label “Versicolor” vs rest). Each ensemble corresponds to the smallest that achieves at least a 50% reduction in normalized test risk.
Figure 3: Comparison of two search strategies for learning a single conjunction with a maximum rule complexity of cmax=5 . Each box represents a candidate conjunction including candidate proposition p~j(s) with sparsity ∥wj∥0=s , while pj(s) denotes a fixed selected proposition. The red paths indicate the best conjunction candidates selected at each complexity level. In both strategies, a new proposition can be added at each level to increase rule complexity. (Left) : At each complexity level (vertical levels), all possible sparsity levels (horizontal levels) for the next proposition while previously learned propositions are fixed. The conjunction candidate with the highest boosting objective is selected as the final conjunction. (Right) : At each complexity level, the conjunction complexity increases by one, allowing previously learned propositions to be refitted with higher sparsity ( s+1 ). All configurations constrained by the current complexity are evaluated via the boosting objective, and the best candidate is retained. Finally, selected conjunctions across all complexity levels are compared on validation risk, and the one with the lowest risk is selected as the final rule.
Figure 4: Risk/complexity trade-offs for different methods and 8 datasets based on cross-validation-selected hyper-parameters (corresponding plots for the remaining datasets are provided in appendix, Figure 6 ). The y-axis shows the mean normalized risk, computed using squared loss for regression datasets and logistic loss for classification datasets, averaged over 15 repetitions for model complexities ranging from 1 to 100. Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals.
25% risk reduction
Dataset
TGB
NRE
RFObTr
LLTB
EBM
Iris
6 8 13
10 10 13
16 25 29
8 9 14
40 40 40
Liver
∞∞∞
∞∞∞
∞∞∞
∞∞∞
∞∞∞
Diabetes
14 16 37
28 28 28
6 7 9
7 7 8
80 80 80
Breast Cancer
7 7 7
36 50 66
7 13 13
6 6 7
∞∞∞
Banknote
3 3 3
48 50 54
9 9 11
5 5 6
32 32 32
Table 2: Model complexity comparison of methods across benchmark datasets, for three normalized test-risk reduction targets, based on cross-validation-selected hyper-parameters. For each target, the first ensemble with the smallest complexity that hits the target is selected. Three numbers are reported for each experiment, representing the median (center), lower (left), and upper (right) bounds of the 92% confidence interval.
Normalized Train Risks
Dataset
TGB
NRE
RFObTr
LLTB
EBM
Iris
0.20 ± 0.09
0.45 ± 0.05
0.16 ± 0.10
0.09 ± 0.05
0.50 ± 0.07
Liver
0.70 ± 0.06
0.83 ± 0.00
0.70 ± 0.04
0.78 ± 0.04
0.83 ± 0.00
Diabetes
0.45 ± 0.05
0.46 ± 0.02
0.46 ± 0.02
0.47 ± 0.03
0.53 ± 0.00
Breast Cancer
0.14 ± 0.04
0.18 ± 0.03
0.04 ± 0.01
0.08 ± 0.02
-
Banknote
0.22 ± 0.10
0.31 ± 0.02
0.01 ± 0.00
0.01 ± 0.01
0.35 ± 0.06
Table 3: Normalized risk comparison of methods across benchmark datasets, averaged over complexities between 1 to 100 based on cross-validation-selected hyper-parameters. For cases where a method does not achieve a valid solution within this complexity budget, (–) is reported.
Dataset
d
n ′
TGB
NRE
RFObTr
LLTB
EBM
Iris*
4
150
0.04
0.08
0.04
0.08
7.15
Liver*
6
345
-
-
-
-
-
Diabetes
10
442
0.27
0.11
1.71
0.25
0.22
Breast Cancer*
30
569
0.44
0.19
11.09
0.45
-
Banknote*
4
1372
0.16
0.52
0.16
0.27
0.36
Red Wine
11
1599
2.32
0.14
5.25
1.71
0.26
Table 4: Median computation time (in seconds) to achieve 25% risk reduction (see Table 2 ) with dataset size n′ , dimension d , and task type (classification marked (*)); dash indicates that method does not achieve target risk reduction.
Appendix figures & tables12 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Traditional Gradient Boosting
-0.28
if
True
+1.28
if
( ave_occup ≤ 3.42) AND ( med_income ≥ 5.11)
-0.73
if
ave_rooms ≥ 4.3 AND med_income ≤ 2.35
+1.12
if
( ave_occup ≤ 2.34) AND ( hs_age ≥ 17) AND ( latitude ≤ 37.8) AND ( med_income ≥ 3.14)
+0.72
if
( ave_occup ≤ 2.98) AND ( hs_age ≥ 25) AND ( longitude ≤ -118) AND ( med_income ≥ 3.9)
-0.49
if
( latitude ≥ 37.8) AND ( longitude ≥ -122)
Appendix
Table 5: Rules generated by different methods on the California housing price dataset. Each ensemble corresponds to the smallest that achieves at least a 50% reduction in normalized test risk.
25% error rate reduction
Dataset
TGB
NRE
RFObTr
LLTB
EBM
BRS
Iris
8 8 8
10 13 50
11 18 25
8 8 9
40 40 40
30 30 30
Liver
7 9 18
∞∞∞
8 9 11
5 7 8
36 36 36
36 42 48
Breast Cancer
7 7 7
36 50 66
7 13 13
6 6 7
∞∞∞
57 63 69
Banknote
3 3 3
48 50 54
9 9 11
5 5 6
32 32 32
36 42 45
Magic
3 10 14
∞∞∞
4 5 5
5 6 6
80 80 80
6 6 6
Appendix
Table 6: Model complexity comparison methods across benchmark classification datasets, considering three test error rate reduction (0/1 loss) targets on test normalized error rate based on cross-validation-selected hyper-parameters. For each target, the first ensemble with the smallest complexity that hits the target is selected. Three numbers are reported for each experiment, representing the median (center), lower (left), and upper (right) bounds of the 92% confidence interval.
Figure 5: Normalized error rate ( R01(c)/R01(0) ) vs complexity trade-offs by different methods including Bayesian Rule Set (BRS). For each method, ensembles with increasing numbers of rules are extracted, and the mean error rate and mean model complexity are reported for each rule count, up to the maximum number of rules corresponding to a model complexity of 100. Error bars represent 95% CI.
Normalized Train Error Rates
Dataset
TGB
NRE
RFObTr
LLTB
EBM
BRS
Iris
0.14 ± 0.11
0.46 ± 0.06
0.11 ± 0.08
0.05 ± 0.04
0.47 ± 0.08
0.03 ± 0.01
Liver
0.41 ± 0.06
0.42 ± 0.04
0.36 ± 0.02
0.45 ± 0.04
0.52 ± 0.00
0.34 ± 0.09
Breast Cancer
0.07 ± 0.03
0.09 ± 0.01
0.01 ± 0.00
0.03 ± 0.01
-
0.24 ± 0.05
Banknote
0.13 ± 0.06
0.22 ± 0.02
0.00 ± 0.00
0.00 ± 0.00
0.21 ± 0.03
0.37 ± 0.06
Magic
0.57 ± 0.06
0.49 ± 0.00
0.54 ± 0.02
0.49 ± 0.03
0.60 ± 0.00
0.69 ± 0.01
Appendix
Table 7: Normalized Error rate comparison of methods across benchmark classification datasets, averaged over complexities between 1 to 100 based on cross-validation-selected hyper-parameters. For cases where a method does not achieve a valid solution within this complexity budget, (–) is reported.
Normalized Train Error Rate
Dataset
TGB
NRE
RFObTr
LLTB
EBM
BRS
Iris
0.02 0.04 0.06
0.52 0.53 0.67
0.02 0.02 0.05
0 0.02 0.05
0.09 0.13 0.15
0.02 0.04 0.05
Liver
0.37 0.46 0.49
1 1 1
0.34 0.36 0.41
0.4 0.45 0.47
0.53 0.54 0.57
0.5 0.56 0.57
Breast Cancer
0.07 0.08 0.1
0.11 0.15 1
0.01 0.01 0.01
0.02 0.02 0.03
1 1 1
1 1 1
Banknote
0.08 0.09 0.12
0.21 0.31 1
0 0 0
0 0 0
0.15 0.16 0.18
0.17 0.4 0.46
Magic
0.54 0.55 0.57
1 1 1
0.54 0.57 0.57
0.47 0.47 0.49
1 1 1
0.68 0.69 0.71
Appendix
Table 8: Normalized error rate comparison of methods across benchmark datasets for a target model complexity of 50 , based on cross-validation-selected hyper-parameters. Three numbers are reported for each experiment, representing the median (center), lower (left), and upper (right) bounds of the 92% confidence interval.
Figure 6: Risk vs complexity trade-offs by different methods for red wine , liver , banknote , voice , Friedman1 , Friedman2 datasets based on cross-validation-selected hyper-parameters, continuing Figure 4 . For each method, ensembles with increasing numbers of rules are extracted, and the mean normalized risk and mean model complexity are reported over 15 repetitions for each rule count, up to the maximum number of rules corresponding to a model complexity of 100. Error bars represent 95% CI.
Normalized Train Risk
Dataset
TGB
NRE
RFObTr
LLTB
EBM
Iris
0.09 0.1 0.12
0.55 0.57 0.59
0.06 0.08 0.1
0.04 0.07 0.07
0.18 0.2 0.25
Liver
0.7 0.71 0.73
1 1 1
0.69 0.72 0.75
0.76 0.77 0.8
0.85 0.88 0.89
Diabetes
0.46 0.48 0.5
0.48 0.5 0.51
0.43 0.45 0.47
0.44 0.44 0.47
1 1 1
Breast Cancer
0.12 0.13 0.14
0.18 0.27 1
0.03 0.03 0.04
0.05 0.07 0.08
1 1 1
Banknote
0.13 0.15 0.17
0.28 0.39 1
0 0 0
0 0 0
0.22 0.23 0.24
Appendix
Table 9: Normalized risk comparison of methods across benchmark datasets for a target model complexity of 50 , based on cross-validation-selected hyper-parameters. Three numbers are reported for each experiment, representing the median (center), lower (left), and upper (right) bounds of the 92% confidence interval.
25% risk reduction
Dataset
TGB
NRE
RFObTr
LLTB
EBM
Iris
6 8 8
10 10 13
15 21 26
6 7 7
40 40 40
Liver
∞∞∞
∞∞∞
∞∞∞
∞∞∞
∞∞∞
Diabetes
14 16 31
28 28 28
6 7 9
4 4 4
80 80 80
Breast Cancer
7 7 7
36 50 66
7 7 13
5 5 5
∞∞∞
Banknote
3 3 3
48 50 54
9 9 11
5 5 5
32 32 32
Appendix
Table 10: Model complexity comparison of methods across benchmark datasets, considering three test risk reduction targets on normalized test risk based on oracle-selected hyper-parameters. For each target, the first ensemble with the smallest complexity that hits the target is selected. Three numbers are reported for each experiment, representing the median (center), lower (left), and upper (right) bounds of the 92% confidence interval over 15 repetitions.
Train Risks
Dataset
TGB
NRE
RFObTr
LLTB
EBM
Iris
0.25 ± 0.09
0.45 ± 0.05
0.19 ± 0.10
0.08 ± 0.02
0.51 ± 0.06
Liver
0.77 ± 0.04
0.83 ± 0.00
0.70 ± 0.03
0.79 ± 0.03
0.84 ± 0.00
Diabetes
0.45 ± 0.05
0.46 ± 0.02
0.46 ± 0.02
0.48 ± 0.03
0.53 ± 0.00
Breast Cancer
0.18 ± 0.04
0.18 ± 0.03
0.06 ± 0.01
0.09 ± 0.02
-
Banknote
0.23 ± 0.10
0.31 ± 0.02
0.01 ± 0.00
0.01 ± 0.01
0.35 ± 0.06
Appendix
Table 11: Normalized risk comparison of methods across benchmark datasets, averaged over complexities between 1 to 100 based on oracle-selected hyper-parameters. For cases where a method does not achieve a valid solution within this complexity budget, (–) is reported.
Figure 7: Risk vs complexity trade-offs by different methods for adult , magic , housing price , Friedman3 , used car price , iris , diabetes , breast cancer datasets based on oracle-selected hyper-parameters. For each method, ensembles with increasing numbers of rules are extracted, and the mean normalized risk and mean model complexity are reported over 15 repetitions for each rule count, up to the maximum number of rules corresponding to a model complexity of 100. Error bars represent 95% CI.
Figure 8: Risk vs complexity trade-offs by different methods for red wine , liver , banknote , voice , Friedman1 , Friedman2 datasets based on oracle-selected hyper-parameters, continuing Figure 7 . For each method, ensembles with increasing numbers of rules are extracted, and the mean normalized risk and mean model complexity are reported over 15 repetitions for each rule count, up to the maximum number of rules corresponding to a model complexity of 100. Error bars represent 95% CI.
Figure 9: Empirical computational complexity of the binary search procedure across 14 benchmark datasets with original sample sizes. The x-axis denotes the target sparsity level (up to 10), and the y-axis shows the average number of binary search iterations required to identify the λl1 value yielding the desired sparsity. Error bars indicate 95% confidence intervals over 10 repetitions.
Interpretable machine learning is essential in high-stakes domains where decision-making requires accountability, transparency, and trust. While rule-based models offer global and exact interpretability, learning rule sets that simultaneously achieve high predictive performance and low, human-understandable complexity remains challenging. To address this, we introduce TT-Sparse, a flexible neural building block that leverages differentiable truth tables as nodes to learn sparse, effective connections. A key contribution of our approach is a new soft TopK operator with straight-through estimation for learning discrete, cardinality-constrained feature selection in an end-to-end differentiable manner. Crucially, the forward pass remains sparse, enabling efficient computation and exact symbolic rule extraction. As a result, each node (and the entire model) can be transformed exactly into compact, globally interpretable DNF/CNF Boolean formulas via Quine-McCluskey minimization. Extensive empirical results across 28 datasets spanning binary, multiclass, and regression tasks show that the learned sparse rules exhibit superior predictive performance with lower complexity compared to existing state-of-the-art methods.
Hans Farrell Soegeng, Sarthak Ketanbhai Modi, Thomas Peyrin
School of Physical and Mathematical Sciences, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.
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 ℓ1-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× to 87× 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.
Srikumar Krishnamoorthy
Information Systems Area, Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad, India
In many high-stakes applications, machine learning is dominated by black-box models that require post hoc explanations to justify their predictions. These explanations are often unreliable because they do not reflect the model's actual computations, limiting accountability and trust. A natural alternative is to use models that are interpretable by design. However, existing rule-based approaches, such as RuleFit and decision trees, while transparent, often lack stability and predictive strength, reinforcing a perceived trade-off between traditional performance measures and model understandability. To address this, we propose Sparse Relaxed Regularized Regression Rule-Fit (SR4-Fit), an intrinsically interpretable algorithm for both classification and regression that produces compact and stable rule sets without sacrificing performance. Using demographic data from the U.S. Census Bureau's American Community Survey, SR4-Fit predicts U.S. House election outcomes with high accuracy and interpretability while uncovering demographic interactions missed by black-box models. We further validate SR4-Fit across fourteen benchmark datasets (six classification and eight regression), where it outperforms existing rule-based methods, including RuleFit and decision trees in terms of accuracy, stability, and compactness while remaining competitive with black-box models in predictivity. These results demonstrate that interpretability and predictive reliability need not be mutually exclusive, offering a practical and transparent alternative for high-stakes decision-making.
Shyam Sundar Murali Krishnan, Dean Frederick Hougen
School of Computer Science, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma, USA