Learning Optimal Oblique Decision Trees with (Max)SAT
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Decision trees are widely used in machine learning for their interpretability and effectiveness in classification tasks. Traditional axis-parallel decision trees partition data using single-feature thresholds at each node, but they often struggle to represent complex, non-axis-aligned decision boundaries efficiently. This limitation can result in unnecessarily large and less interpretable trees. Oblique decision trees address this limitation by using linear combinations of features at each node, allowing a more natural representation of complex decision boundaries while maintaining interpretability through sparse linear combinations. However, learning optimal oblique decision trees poses a significant computational challenge, as existing methods predominantly rely on suboptimal greedy heuristics. In this paper, we propose a novel approach to learning globally optimal oblique decision trees by reformulating the problem as a (Max)SAT instance. By leveraging state-of-the-art (Max)SAT solvers, our method efficiently explores the solution space to identify optimal trees. Experiments on benchmark datasets demonstrate that our approach generates optimal oblique decision trees within reasonable computational time for small to medium-sized datasets.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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".