mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

A cautionary tale on fitting decision trees to data from additive models: generalization lower bounds

arXiv 2110.09626 ↗First posted 18 Oct 2021stat.ML cs.IT cs.LGcited by 9

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Decision trees are important both as interpretable models amenable to high-stakes decision-making, and as building blocks of ensemble methods such as random forests and gradient boosting. Their statistical properties, however, are not well understood. The most cited prior works have focused on deriving pointwise consistency guarantees for CART in a classical nonparametric regression setting. We take a different approach, and advocate studying the generalization performance of decision trees with respect to different generative regression models. This allows us to elicit their inductive bias, that is, the assumptions the algorithms make (or do not make) to generalize to new data, thereby guiding practitioners on when and how to apply these methods. In this paper, we focus on sparse additive generative models, which have both low statistical complexity and some nonparametric flexibility. We prove a sharp squared error generalization lower bound for a large class of decision tree algorithms fitted to sparse additive models with C1 component functions. This bound is surprisingly much worse than the minimax rate for estimating such sparse additive models. The inefficiency is due not to greediness, but to the loss in power for detecting global structure when we average responses solely over each leaf, an observation that suggests opportunities to improve tree-based algorithms, for example, by hierarchical shrinkage. To prove these bounds, we develop new technical machinery, establishing a novel connection between decision tree estimation and rate-distortion theory, a sub-field of information theory.

Key facts. Cited by 9 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 20 of its 57 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 18 Oct 2021.

Builds on

20 of 57 references.

References · 20

  1. 2016XGBoost: A Scalable Tree Boosting Systemcited by 5,120
  2. 2017Towards A Rigorous Science of Interpretable Machine Learningcited by 1,400
  3. 2015Estimation and Inference of Heterogeneous Treatment Effects using Random Forestscited by 597
  4. 2021Interpretable Machine Learning: Fundamental Principles and 10 Grand Challengescited by 364
  5. 2019Interpretable machine learning: definitions, methods, and applicationscited by 303
  6. 2015Recursive Partitioning for Heterogeneous Causal Effectscited by 254
  7. 2015ranger: A Fast Implementation of Random Forests for High Dimensional Data in C++ and Rcited by 171
  8. 2015A Random Forest Guided Tourcited by 168
  9. 2015Interpretable classifiers using rules and Bayesian analysis: Building a better stroke prediction modelcited by 140
  10. 2020Generalized and Scalable Optimal Sparse Decision Treescited by 98
  11. 2014Consistency of random forestscited by 84
  12. 2017Iterative Random Forests to detect predictive and stable high-order interactionscited by 42
8 more
  1. 2018Local Linear Forestscited by 19
  2. 2017Data-driven Advice for Applying Machine Learning to Bioinformatics Problemscited by 16
  3. 2020Trees, forests, and impurity-based variable importancecited by 16
  4. 2020Estimation and Inference with Trees and Forests in High Dimensionscited by 14
  5. 2020Sparse learning with CARTcited by 12
  6. 2021Bridging Breiman's Brook: From Algorithmic Modeling to Statistical Learningcited by 7
  7. 2017Additive Models with Trend Filteringcited by 6
  8. 2019Linear Aggregation in Tree-based Estimatorscited by 5

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 7 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2022: 4; 2023: 1; 2024: 1; 2025: 2; 2026: 1.

9 papers.