Learnability Of Decision Trees Under The Uniform Distribution

Decision trees are a popular supervised learning method used for classification and regression tasks. They work by recursively partitioning the input space and fitting simple prediction models in each partition. Understanding the theoretical properties of how decision trees can reliably learn patterns from data, known as their learnability, has been an important area of research.

Formal Definition of Learnability

The learnability of a model refers to its ability to approximate the true unknown function that generates the data using a reasonable number of training examples. For decision trees, this can be formally defined in terms of sample complexity bounds – the number of samples needed to learn an accurate tree.

Specifically, a decision tree classification algorithm is considered learnable if it can find a tree with error at most ε using a number of training samples polynomial in 1/ε and other key parameters of the problem such as the size of the tree and the dimension of the input space. Similar definitions apply in the regression setting.

Table of Contents

Sample Complexity Bounds

Over the years, researchers have derived upper bounds on the sample complexity of learning optimal decision trees under different assumptions. Some well known bounds include:

O(n log n) samples for learning trees with n nodes in noise-free classification problems.
Õ(dk/ε2) samples for learning trees with k nodes that make d-dimensional axis-aligned splits for ε-approximate classification and regression under bounded noise assumptions.
Õ(d3k2/ε2) samples for learning arbitrary k node trees with axis-aligned splits for ε-approximate classification and regression under bounded noise assumptions.

The above analyses make some simplifying assumptions about the data distribution, noise conditions, and choice of split criteria. However, in practice performance can degrade significantly if the learning algorithm does not take distributional factors into account.

Learning Algorithms

Many different algorithms have been proposed over the years for learning decision trees from training data. The two most popular methods are top-down induction and the random forest ensemble approach.

Top-down Induction of Decision Trees

Top-down induction methods recursively partition the input space by greedily choosing the best split points according to some criterion at each node. Popular criteria include information gain, Gini impurity, and variance reduction for classification and regression tasks respectively. The recursion stops when some stopping rule is triggered, e.g. maximum tree depth is reached, number of samples in a leaf node falls below a threshold, or there is no split that significantly improves the criterion.

Random Forest Learning

Random forests improve upon single tree learners by training an ensemble of trees, each on a randomly perturbed version of the data. While individual trees can overfit, averaging predictions over many trees can reduce variance significantly. Furthermore, by decorrelating errors, random forests do not suffer as much from poor split criterion choices or ignoring training distribution factors.

Learning Under the Uniform Distribution

Most theoretical analyses of tree learning algorithms assume simple underlying data distributions such as the uniform distribution over hypercubes. However, performance often suffers significantly in practice when training data comes from more complex distributions. Understanding performance under the uniform distribution is still useful as a baseline.

Why the Uniform Distribution?

There are some benefits to studying the uniform distribution case:

It serves as a useful reference point to compare with other distributions.
Algorithms that account for biases in the uniform case extend naturally to handle other distributions.
Information-theoretic sample complexity bounds hold most tightly under the uniform distribution.

By understanding performance relative to the uniform case, we can determine whether issues stem from distributional factors versus other limitations of learning algorithms.

Sample Complexity Analyses

Under the uniform distribution over hypercubes, we can characterize the sample complexity of top-down decision tree algorithms more precisely. For example, with random subspace splits, the Ensemble Classifier for Numeric Data (ECND) algorithm learns ε-accurate decision trees using Õ(dk/ε2) samples uniformly distributed in [0,1]d where k upper bounds the tree size.

For random forests, generalization error bounds can be derived in terms of the correlation between trees. With totally decorrelated trees, the generalization performance scales as Õ(k/nt) where nt is the number of trees. So with enough trees, the ensemble can generalize even if individual trees overfit.

Algorithm Modifications

While performance under the uniform distribution serves as a useful baseline, real-world data often does not satisfy uniformity assumptions. We can modify and extend decision tree algorithms to explicitly handle biases in the training distribution that negatively impact learning.

Adjusted Split Criteria

Algorithms like CART and C4.5 use greedy split criteria that optimize for purity or information gain at each node. These metrics can lead to poor splits when the training distribution is non-uniform. Variants like UFFTrees explicitly reweight samples to account for density differences.

Balanced Sampling

We can also modify the sampling scheme used to construct each decision tree learner. Simple random sampling tends to overrepresent dense regions and underrepresent sparse regions of the space. A balanced sampler that draws uniformly across varying densities can improve performance.

Open Problems and Future Work

While much progress has been made in understanding decision tree learnability, many open questions remain. Key directions for future work include:

Tighter sample complexity bounds for broader classes of problem distributions.
Ensembling algorithms that directly leverage properties of the training distribution.
Modifications to improve robustness to adversarially manipulated data distributions.

By incorporating distributional knowledge more tightly into learning algorithms, we can continue improving real-world effectiveness and reliability.