Decision trees as partitioning machines to characterize their generalization properties
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 popular machine learning models that are simple to build and easy to interpret. Even though algorithms to learn decision trees date back to almost 50 years, key properties affecting their generalization error are still weakly bounded. Hence, we revisit binary decision trees on real-valued features from the perspective of partitions of the data. We introduce the notion of partitioning function, and we relate it to the growth function and to the VC dimension. Using this new concept, we are able to find the exact VC dimension of decision stumps, which is given by the largest integer $d$ such that $2\ell \ge \binom{d}{\left\lfloor\frac{d}{2}\right\rfloor}$, where $\ell$ is the number of real-valued features. We provide a recursive expression to bound the partitioning functions, resulting in a upper bound on the growth function of any decision tree structure. This allows us to show that the VC dimension of a binary tree structure with $N$ internal nodes is of order $N \log(N\ell)$. Finally, we elaborate a pruning algorithm based on these results that performs better than the CART algorithm on a number of datasets, with the advantage that no cross-validation is required.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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