Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 29, 2026

A Machine Learning Approach to Design an Efficient Selective Screening of Mild Cognitive Impairment
Published on: January 11, 2020
Expected-depth selection for interpretable decision trees
Zhigao Huang1, Yuzhuo Pan1, Miao Pan2
1Key Laboratory of Information Functional Material for Fujian Higher Education, Quanzhou Normal University, Quanzhou, 362000, China.
None:
Interpretable decision trees are usually selected by worst-case structural measures such as maximum depth or node count, although many deployments incur cost along the particular root-to-leaf path followed by each case. We study expected depth, the test-sample average number of internal decision tests, as a direct measure of average inference burden. The proposed soft-depth (Soft-D) selector chooses, from a cost-complexity pruning candidate path, the tree with minimum validation expected depth among candidates whose validation accuracy remains within a user-specified tolerance of the best candidate. Across eleven benchmark datasets and 25 outer test folds per dataset, Soft-D reduces expected depth by 47.4% relative to unpruned CART and by 12.1% relative to accuracy-first CCP at [Formula: see text]; a new depth-limited CART baseline confirms that the gain is strongest when a practitioner-selected maximum depth still leaves many samples on long paths. The analysis also shows that ε is a real accuracy-complexity hyperparameter, that refitting after selection can change expected depth in a measurable minority of folds, and that expected-depth selection coincides with node minimization in equal-cost CART paths but separates naturally under heterogeneous query costs. These results position expected-depth selection as a lightweight deployment-time model-selection layer rather than a replacement for globally optimal tree induction.
Related Concept Videos
Survival Tree
Building a Survival Tree
Constructing a survival tree begins...
Decision Making: P-value Method
First, a specific claim about the population parameter is proposed. The claim is based on the research question and is stated in a simple form. Further, an opposing statement to the claim is also stated. These statements can act as null and alternative hypotheses: a null hypothesis would be a neutral statement while the alternative hypothesis can have a...
Woodward–Hoffmann Selection Rules and Microscopic Reversibility
Decision Making: Traditional Method
First, a specific claim about the population parameter is decided based on the research question and is stated in a simple form. Further, an opposing statement to this claim is also stated. These statements can act as null and alternative hypotheses, out of which a null hypothesis would be a...
Interpretation of Confidence Intervals
Confidence intervals have confidence coefficients that are crucial for their interpretation. The most common confidence coefficients are 0.90, 0.95, and 0.99, which can be written as percentages–90%, 95%, and 99%, respectively.
Suppose a person calculates a confidence interval with a confidence coefficient of 0.95. In that case, they can...
Prediction Intervals
However, the point estimate is most likely not the exact value of the population parameter, but close to it. After calculating point estimates, we construct interval estimates, called confidence intervals or prediction intervals. This prediction interval comprises a range of values unlike the point estimate and is a better predictor of the observed sample value, y.
The...