Optimal Decision Diagrams for Classification
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 diagrams for classification have some notable advantages over decision trees, as their internal connections can be determined at training time and their width is not bound to grow exponentially with their depth. Accordingly, decision diagrams are usually less prone to data fragmentation in internal nodes. However, the inherent complexity of training these classifiers acted as a long-standing barrier to their widespread adoption. In this context, we study the training of optimal decision diagrams (ODDs) from a mathematical programming perspective. We introduce a novel mixed-integer linear programming model for training and demonstrate its applicability for many datasets of practical importance. Further, we show how this model can be easily extended for fairness, parsimony, and stability notions. We present numerical analyses showing that our model allows training ODDs in short computational times, and that ODDs achieve better accuracy than optimal decision trees, while allowing for improved stability without significant accuracy losses.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it