Fast Optimization of Weighted Sparse Decision Trees for use in Optimal Treatment Regimes and Optimal Policy Design.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
, because the algorithms cannot handle weighted data samples. Specifically, they rely on the discreteness of the loss function, which means that real-valued weights cannot be directly used. For example, none of the existing techniques produce policies that incorporate inverse propensity weighting on individual data points. We present three algorithms for efficient sparse weighted decision tree optimization. The first approach directly optimizes the weighted loss function; however, it tends to be computationally inefficient for large datasets. Our second approach, which scales more efficiently, transforms weights to integer values and uses data duplication to transform the weighted decision tree optimization problem into an unweighted (but larger) counterpart. Our third algorithm, which scales to much larger datasets, uses a randomized procedure that samples each data point with a probability proportional to its weight. We present theoretical bounds on the error of the two fast methods and show experimentally that these methods can be two orders of magnitude faster than the direct optimization of the weighted loss, without losing significant accuracy.
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 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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".