No AI summary available for this article.
Why It Matters
Random forests (RFs) predict well but are opaque, whereas single decision trees are interpretable but unstable.
Provenance
Discovered via ArXiv and published by ArXiv.
Key Claims
Original description
Random forests (RFs) predict well but are opaque, whereas single decision trees are interpretable but unstable. Artificial representative trees (ARTs) were developed as interpretable surrogate models for RFs, but their use as standalone prediction models with uncertainty quantification has not been systematically investigated. We combine ARTs with leaf-wise Mondrian conformal predictive systems (CPS), enabling a single tree to provide continuous predictions, prediction intervals, and probabilities of exceeding arbitrary thresholds. We compared ARTs with CPS against decision trees with CPS and...
Discovered via ArXiv
Research papers and preprints from arXiv.
Publisher: arxiv.org
ID: http://arxiv.org/abs/2609.24528v1 · Indexed about 1 hour ago