Decision trees compensate for model misspecification

Boost (Chen and Guestrin, 2016) with default tree-depth 3 and default tree number 100, could be depicted in full: The best-performing models in ML are not interpretable. If we can explain why they outperform, we may be able to replicate these mechanisms and obtain both interpretability and performance. One example are decision trees and their descendent gradient boosting machines (GBMs). These perform well in the presence of complex interactions, with tree depth governing the order of interactions. However, interactions cannot fully account for the depth of trees found in practice. We confirm 5 alternative hypotheses about the role of tree depth in performance in the absence of true interactions, and present results from experiments on a battery of datasets. Part of the success of tree models is due to their robustness to various forms of mis-specification.