Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42776758›Full record

ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2026

AICO: Feature significance tests for supervised learning.

Kay Giesecke, Enguerrand Horel, Chartsiri Jirachotkulthorn

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Kay GieseckeHasso Plattner Institute, University of Potsdam, Potsdam 14482, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-5380-2918
Enguerrand HorelUpstart Inc., San Mateo, CA 94402.
Chartsiri JirachotkulthornInstitute for Computational and Mathematical Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305.ORCID 0009-0008-3372-5629

Funding

Stanford University Center for Human-Centered AI (HAI) N/A
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Machine learning is central to modern science, industry, and policy, yet its predictive power often comes at the cost of transparency: We rarely know which input features drive a model's predictions. Without such understanding, researchers cannot draw reliable conclusions, practitioners cannot ensure fairness or accountability, and policymakers cannot trust or govern model-based decisions. Existing tools for assessing feature influence are limited; most lack statistical guarantees, and many require costly retraining or surrogate modeling, making them impractical for large modern models. We introduce AICO (Add-In COvariates), a broadly applicable framework that turns model interpretability into an efficient statistical exercise. AICO tests whether each feature contributes to predictive performance by masking its information and measuring the resulting change. The method provides exact, finite-sample feature [Formula: see text]-values and CIs for feature importance through a simple, nonasymptotic hypothesis testing procedure. It requires no retraining, surrogate modeling, or distributional assumptions, making it feasible for large-scale algorithms. In both controlled experiments and real applications, from credit scoring to mortgage-behavior prediction, AICO identifies variables that contribute to model behavior, providing a scalable and statistically principled path toward transparent and trustworthy machine learning.

Indexed as

confidence intervalfeature significanceinferencemachine learningP-value

Identifiers

PMID42776758
PMCPMC13624631

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.