Multi-Armed Bandits-Based Optimization of Decision Trees
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Decision trees, without appropriate constraints, can easily become overly complex and prone to overfit, capturing noise rather than generalizable patterns. To resolve this problem, pruning operation is a crucial part in optimizing decision trees, as it not only reduces the complexity of trees but also decreases the probability of generating overfit models. The conventional pruning techniques like Cost-Complexity Pruning (CCP) and Reduced Error Pruning (REP) are mostly based on greedy approaches that focus on immediate gains in performance while pruning nodes of the decision tree. However, this might result in a lower generalization in the long run, compromising the robust ability of the tree model when introduced to unseen data samples, particularly when trained with small and complex datasets. To address this challenge, we are proposing a Multi-Armed Bandits (MAB)-based pruning approach, a reinforcement learning (RL)-based technique, that will dynamically prune the tree to generate optimal decision tree with better generalization. Our proposed approach assumes the pruning process as an exploration-exploitation problem, where we are utilizing the MAB algorithms to find optimal branch nodes to prune based on feedback from each pruning actions. Experimental evaluation on several benchmark datasets, demonstrated that our proposed approach results in better predictive performance compared to the traditional ones. This suggests the potential of utilizing MAB for a dynamic and probabilistic way of decision tree pruning, in turn optimizing decision tree-based model.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".