DECISION TREES DO NOT GENERALIZE TO NEW VARIATIONS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The family of decision tree learning algorithms is among the most widespread and studied. Motivated by the desire to develop learning algorithms that can generalize when learning highly varying functions such as those presumably needed to achieve artificial intelligence, we study some theoretical limitations of decision trees. We demonstrate formally that they can be seriously hurt by the curse of dimensionality in a sense that is a bit different from other nonparametric statistical methods, but most importantly, that they cannot generalize to variations not seen in the training set. This is because a decision tree creates a partition of the input space and needs at least one example in each of the regions associated with a leaf to make a sensible prediction in that region. A better understanding of the fundamental reasons for this limitation suggests that one should use forests or even deeper architectures instead of trees, which provide a form of distributed representation and can generalize to variations not encountered in the training data.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".