A Robust Hypothesis Test for Tree Ensemble Pruning

Daniel de Marchi, Matthew Welch, Michael Kosorok
1/24/2023
cs.LGstat.ML

No confident code implementation found for this paper.

Abstract

Gradient boosted decision trees are some of the most popular algorithms in applied machine learning. They are a flexible and powerful tool that can robustly fit to any tabular dataset in a scalable and computationally efficient way. One of the most critical parameters to tune when fitting these models are the various penalty terms used to distinguish signal from noise in the current model. These penalties are effective in practice, but are lacking in robust theoretical justifications. In this paper we develop and present a novel theoretically justified hypothesis test of split quality for gradient boosted tree ensembles and demonstrate that using this method instead of the common penalty terms leads to a significant reduction in out of sample loss. Additionally, this method provides a theoretically well-justified stopping condition for the tree growing algorithm. We also present several innovative extensions to the method, opening the door for a wide variety of novel tree pruning algorithms.

View on arXivView PDF

Code Implementations

No confident code match yet

We couldn't find an author-owned or strongly-evidenced community implementation for this paper. Any repos shown below are weak matches — verify before relying on them.

No code implementations found yet.

Know of an implementation? Let us know in the comments below!

Similar Papers

Cite this paper

@article{marchi2023robust,
  title  = {A Robust Hypothesis Test for Tree Ensemble Pruning},
  author = {Daniel de Marchi and Matthew Welch and Michael Kosorok},
  year   = {2023},
  eprint = {2301.10115},
  archivePrefix = {arXiv},
  url    = {http://arxiv.org/abs/2301.10115v2}
}

Add a badge to your README

Shows whether official code is linked for this paper.

Code of Paper badge
[![Code of Paper](https://codeofpaper.com/badge/2301.10115.svg)](https://codeofpaper.com/paper/2301.10115)

Discussion