In critical situations involving discrimination, gender inequality, economic damage, and even the possibility of casualties, machine learning models must be able to provide clear interpretations for their decisions. Otherwise, their obscure decision-making processes can lead to socioethical issues as they interfere with people's lives. In the aforementioned sectors, random forest algorithms strive, thus their ability to explain themselves is an obvious requirement. In this paper, we present LionForests, which relies on a preliminary work of ours. LionForests is a random forest-specific interpretation technique, which provides rules as explanations. It is applicable from binary classification tasks to multi-class classification and regression tasks, and it is supported by a stable theoretical background. Experimentation, including sensitivity analysis and comparison with state-of-the-art techniques, is also performed to demonstrate the efficacy of our contribution. Finally, we highlight a unique property of LionForests, called conclusiveness, that provides interpretation validity and distinguishes it from previous techniques.

Causal terminology is often introduced in the interpretation of encoding and decoding models trained on neuroimaging data. In this article, we investigate which causal statements are warranted and which ones are not supported by empirical evidence. We argue that the distinction between encoding and decoding models is not sufficient for this purpose: relevant features in encoding and decoding models carry a different meaning in stimulus- and in response-based experimental paradigms. We show that only encoding models in the stimulus-based setting support unambiguous causal interpretations. By combining encoding and decoding models trained on the same data, however, we obtain insights into causal relations beyond those that are implied by each individual model type. We illustrate the empirical relevance of our theoretical findings on EEG data recorded during a visuo-motor learning task.