Papers › Ternary Decision Trees with Locally-Adaptive Uncertainty Zones
Ternary Decision Trees with Locally-Adaptive Uncertainty Zones
William Smits
Title, abstract, authors and date from arXiv's metadata (CC0); this paper is not in the Papers with Code archive (frozen 2025-07-28).
Decision trees assign identical confidence to instances near and far from each split threshold. We introduce ternary decision trees, which augment each split node with an uncertainty zone of half-width delta. A decision-theoretic framework characterises the optimal zone width delta* as the solution to a node-local cost-minimisation problem; four formal properties are established: accuracy decomposition, a sufficiency condition for decided accuracy improvement, an exact efficiency characterisation (eta = Dec-Acc minus Acc_u, the accuracy gap between decided and boundary-uncertain predictions), and asymptotic consistency of the margin method. Instances within the zone receive predictions by weighted blending of both child subtrees and are flagged as boundary-uncertain. We propose and evaluate five delta-estimation methods: quality-plateau (plateau width of the split criterion curve), class-overlap (empirical class-distribution overlap), gain-ratio (split quality relative to split entropy), node-bootstrap (threshold variance under node-level resampling), and margin (SVM-inspired distance to the nearest cross-class training example). All methods reuse statistics already computed during standard CART split finding, requiring no external noise specification. Evaluated across 71 of the 72 OpenML-CC18 datasets with 5-fold cross-validation, all five methods with probabilistic routing significantly outperform standard CART on decided accuracy (Wilcoxon signed-rank, p < 0.001). The margin method achieves the best efficiency (0.104 accuracy gain per unit flagging rate), wins on 42 of 72 datasets, and requires zero hyperparameters. Analysis on Breiman synthetic benchmarks confirms margin is self-calibrating on clean data. On mammography, node-bootstrap achieves +0.71% decided accuracy by flagging 10.8% of cases as boundary-uncertain.
In Syntology For agents, Syntology's MCP tool lists every function and class Syntology harvested from this paper and whether it ran (how to connect): get_harvested_code_for_paper(arxiv_id="2605.22740")
Code
Syntology Ran 16 of 22 code samples harvested from 1 repository linked to this paper; 6 have no recorded run. Of those that ran: 5 ran · honoured contract; 2 ran · violated contract; 2 ran · our draft was wrong; 5 ran · fixture could not drive it; 2 ran with no contract checked.
By repository: found in paper text by Syntology: 22 samples from 1 repository, 16 ran. The run record, sample by sample. “Ran” means executed on a synthesized input, not that the code is correct or reproduces the paper.
Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.
Code Syntology ran Syntology
22 samples harvested; 16 ran; 5 honoured the contract we drafted; 6 have no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-24; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.
Licence: 0 of the 22 samples are pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.
Harvested from smitswil/ternary_tree. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.
Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.
Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.
d9b4d46de383d453 · report
5c414ae59e47f2bf · report
94900c8e21a28995 · report
00d98be6246b9c93 · report
8e3965d6334072f6 · report
1ae014b8576fc2da · report
28facaf62bfcafb0 · report
4699fc60a8f27940 · report
aea0400d00ca24f9 · report
03f68c8aa56c9418 · report
cfad436faae5d3c7 · report
8c2355482782d237 · report
cb4158509bf166ae · report
2035c0c6f205f2a4 · report
efda451b6639d43b · report
582145c98723d35a · report
d63c080a421e4b93 · report
aacb6d6651dccc13 · report
91647e60960530a6 · report
30f7e53291937ba7 · report
dc1828717973b12a · report
5b85dcc53fc482fb · report
Results from the paper
The Papers with Code archive ends with its 2025-07-28 snapshot. This paper's arXiv identifier, 2605.22740, was issued in May 2026, after that date, so the archive has no leaderboard rows for it.
Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections