Learning Optimal Decision Trees using Constraint Programming (Extended Abstract)
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Decision trees are among the most popular classification models in machine learning. Traditionally, they are learned using greedy algorithms. However, such algorithms have their disadvantages: it is difficult to limit the size of the decision trees while maintaining a good classification accuracy, and it is hard to impose additional constraints on the models that are learned. For these reasons, there has been a recent interest in exact and flexible algorithms for learning decision trees. In this paper, we introduce a new approach to learn decision trees using constraint programming. Compared to earlier approaches, we show that our approach obtains better performance, while still being sufficiently flexible to allow for the inclusion of constraints. Our approach builds on three key building blocks: (1) the use of AND/OR search, (2) the use of caching, (3) the use of the CoverSize global constraint proposed recently for the problem of itemset mining. This allows our constraint programming approach to deal in a much more efficient way with the decompositions in the learning problem.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it