partial_dependence() with method recursion computes conditional partial dependence for trees

### Describe the bug

For the case of correlated predictors (clearly highly common) the `sklearn.inspection.partial_dependence()` function gives different answers for `method` = "recursion" and `method` = "brute", see my [post](https://markusloecher.github.io/Partial-Dependence-Trees/) for elaborate examples.

I do not believe that this is intentional and should be fixed. Alternatively, it should be communicated clearly in the documentation that (i) the two methods are not equivalent for tree based algorithms, and (ii) that `method` = "recursion" actually computes the **conditional** $E[f(x_S,X_C)|X_S=x_s]$ instead of the (desired) **interventional** $E[f(x_S,X_C)| \mathbf{do}(X_S=x_s)]$ 

### Steps/Code to Reproduce

```python
from sklearn.tree import DecisionTreeRegressor
import numpy as np
import pandas as pd
from sklearn.inspection import PartialDependenceDisplay, partial_dependence

#Generate the data
#first X
N = 400; p0 = 0.5; p11 = 0.8; M=2
X = np.zeros((N,M)) # a matrix (N * M)
N1 = int(p0*N)
X[0:N1,0] = 1
X[0:int(p11*N1),1] = 1
X[N1:(N1+int((1-p11)*(N-N1))+1),1] = 1
df = pd.DataFrame(X, columns=["X0", "X1"])
#then Y
y = np.zeros(N)
y[(X[:,0] == 0) & (X[:,1] == 0)] = 0.3
y[(X[:,0] == 0) & (X[:,1] == 1)] = 0.7
y[(X[:,0] == 1) & (X[:,1] == 0)] = 0.9
y[(X[:,0] == 1) & (X[:,1] == 1)] = 0.1

df = pd.DataFrame(X, columns=["X0", "X1"])
df["y"] = y

model = DecisionTreeRegressor(max_depth=2, max_features = 2)
model.fit(df[["X0","X1"]], y);

features = ["X1"]
for f in features:
    pdp_interventional = partial_dependence(model, df[["X0","X1"]], f,method = "brute")
    pdp_conditional = partial_dependence(model, df[["X0","X1"]], f,method = "recursion")
    
    print(f, "brute (interventional):", pdp_interventional['average'])
    print(f, "recursion (conditional):", pdp_conditional['average'])

pdp_interventional['average'] == pdp_conditional['average']
```

### Expected Results

We would like the two methods to yield the same pdp values, so the last line should yield

`array([[True, True]])`

### Actual Results

Instead they are different. The print statements yield
_X1 brute (interventional): [[0.6 0.4]]
X1 recursion (conditional): [[0.42 0.22]]_
and the last line yields
`array([[False, False]])`

### Versions

```shell
System:
    python: 3.9.0 (v3.9.0:9cf6752276, Oct  5 2020, 11:29:23)  [Clang 6.0 (clang-600.0.57)]
executable: /Users/loecherm/.pyenv/versions/aug_hs_env/bin/python
   machine: macOS-10.16-x86_64-i386-64bit

Python dependencies:
      sklearn: 1.2.0
          pip: 23.0.1
   setuptools: 49.2.1
        numpy: 1.23.5
        scipy: 1.10.0
       Cython: None
       pandas: 1.5.3
   matplotlib: 3.5.3
       joblib: 1.2.0
threadpoolctl: 3.1.0

Built with OpenMP: True
```

COMMENT:
Thanks @markusloecher for the details notes. Reading the tests, it seems that this something that is expected but it should not this way.

I makes me think about discussion in SHAP regarding the feature perturbation that can be set to "intervational" or "tree_path_dependent" (https://shap.readthedocs.io/en/latest/generated/shap.TreeExplainer.html#shap.TreeExplainer).

It boils down to the same issue. I think that it would make sense to have the interventional approach always and fix the current behaviour. In the future, we could think of the implication of proposing the conditional approach, both in terms of API but even more in terms of implication regarding the interpretation of such results.

@markusloecher It looks like you have a fix in head in the notes that you wrote. Do you feel like contributing a bug fix?

Labels: Documentation, help wanted