Multi-Armed Bandits-Based Optimization of Decision Trees

Hasibul Karim Shanto; Shadikur Rahman; Umme Ayman Koana

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 30 references

Multi-Armed Bandits-Based Optimization of Decision Trees

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that pruning a decision tree with a multi-armed bandit, which treats each branch node as an arm and each pruning decision as a pull, produces trees that generalize better on benchmark datasets than greedy cost-complexity an

desk verdict A plausible MAB-pruning idea that's unverifiable in the supplied manuscript because the full text is corrupted; not ready for peer review as-is. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.05957 v1 pith:A4AJKS2Y submitted 2025-08-08 cs.LG cs.AI

Hasibul Karim Shanto , Umme Ayman Koana , Shadikur Rahman This is my paper

classification cs.LGcs.AI

keywords multi-armedbanditsdecisiontreepruningcost-complexityreducederrorreinforcementlearninggeneralizationoverfittingexploration-exploitation

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper tries to show that pruning a decision tree can be treated as a sequential decision problem rather than a one-shot greedy cleanup. It proposes a multi-armed bandit that chooses which branch nodes to cut, using feedback from each pruning action to balance exploring candidate nodes against exploiting ones that have already helped. On several benchmark datasets the authors report that this bandit-pruned tree predicts better than trees pruned by cost-complexity pruning or reduced error pruning. If the claim holds, improving tree generalization becomes a matter of choosing pruning actions intelligently, which is especially relevant when data are small or noisy and overfitting is the main risk.

What carries the argument

The central object is the multi-armed bandit (MAB) used as a pruning controller. In this framing each candidate branch node is an arm, pruning a node is pulling that arm, and the reward is the feedback from the pruning action; the bandit balances exploration of untried nodes against exploitation of nodes that have already improved the tree. This mechanism replaces a single greedy pass with a sequence of probabilistic choices, which is what the paper credits for better generalization.

What would settle it

Take several fully grown trees on different benchmark datasets, run MAB pruning and the two greedy pruners with the same validation split supplying the reward and a completely separate test split for evaluation, and repeat over many seeds; the central claim fails if bandit-pruned trees do not match or beat the greedy baselines on the untouched test split.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that decision-tree pruning can be cast as a multi-armed bandit problem: every candidate branch node is an arm, pruning that node is the action of pulling the arm, and the feedback from each pruning action is the reward that updates which nodes the algorithm will prune next. Instead of greedily taking the locally best pruning step, the bandit explores less-tested nodes and exploits nodes that have improved performance, producing a dynamic, probabilistic pruning path. The paper reports that this MAB-based pruning yields better predictive performance than Cost-Complexity Pruning and Reduced Error Pruning on several benchmark datasets, and argues the benefit comes fr

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the feedback from each pruning action is an honest signal of how the pruned tree will do on unseen data; if that signal is noisy, is based on data the pruning process has already seen, or can be overfit by the bandit, the selected tree can look better during pruning yet generalize worse than greedy baselines.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the claim holds, MAB pruning can be applied after any decision tree is fully grown, with no change to the tree-building algorithm itself.
The reported advantage is specifically on benchmark datasets, especially small and complex ones, where greedy pruning is most likely to overfit.
The pruning step becomes data-dependent and sequential, so the same tree can be pruned to different shapes depending on the feedback collected along the way.
Because the bandit learns from pruning feedback, a practitioner can use any reward signal that reflects generalization, not just a fixed error-based cost schedule.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

A clean extension would be to make the reward a weighted combination of accuracy and tree size, making the bandit optimize the complexity-accuracy trade-off directly instead of implicitly.
The bandit formulation could be carried beyond a single tree, for instance pruning individual trees inside an ensemble while treating whole trees as arms.
Because the reward signal is the only guide, its construction deserves the same care as the pruning policy; a validation-based reward should be nested so the final test set is never touched during bandit learning.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Jo,

Quick take on arXiv:2508.05957. The idea lands cleanly: instead of greedy Cost-Complexity Pruning or Reduced Error Pruning, treat pruning as a multi-armed bandit problem where each arm is a pruning action and the reward is some feedback from validation or training. That's a sensible, if not exactly deep, application of MAB to a classic problem. The motivation in the abstract is fine—greedy selection can hurt long-run generalization—and framing it as exploration-exploitation is legitimate.

The trouble begins when I try to look past the abstract. The full text I received is garbled—mojibake, not just minor OCR errors—so I cannot read the algorithm, the datasets, the baselines, or the experimental protocol. That alone makes the paper unactionable. The stress-test note's concern about the action space is well placed: pruning decisions are structurally dependent, and a standard MAB assumes independent arms. If the paper treats each node as an independent arm with a stationary reward, that's a real flaw. If it uses sequential pruning, a contextual bandit, or a state-dependent reward, the concern doesn't land. The abstract doesn't tell us which. It also gives no details on datasets, hyperparameters, statistical significance, or how the reward is computed to avoid selection bias. So the central claim of better predictive performance is unsupported in the material I can see.

That said, the abstract suggests the authors understand the exploration-exploitation tradeoff, and the idea is not implausible. If the actual PDF on arXiv is clean, this could be a modest contribution worth a reader's time. But the manuscript as provided cannot be reviewed. I would not desk-reject the idea; I'd ask the authors to resubmit a readable version. For us, it's not citable until we see the real text and can check whether they handled the dependency issue and the validation signal.

For an editor: don't send this out in its current corrupted form. Return it for a clean PDF, then assign a reviewer with tree-pruning and bandit experience to verify the action space and reward design.

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a multi-armed bandit (MAB) based pruning method for decision trees, framing pruning as an exploration-exploitation problem. The abstract states that the approach dynamically selects branch nodes to prune and reports better predictive performance than Cost-Complexity Pruning (CCP) and Reduced Error Pruning (REP) on several benchmark datasets. The core idea is plausible and potentially useful, but the submitted manuscript cannot be properly assessed: the full text is heavily corrupted and largely unreadable, and the abstract alone does not provide the algorithmic or experimental details needed to verify the central claim.

Significance. If the approach is sound, it would constitute a novel contribution at the intersection of reinforcement learning/MAB and decision-tree pruning, with potential practical value for producing smaller and more generalizable trees. However, the manuscript as submitted provides no verifiable evidence for the main claim: no problem formulation, no specification of the MAB algorithm or reward signal, no experimental protocol, and no readable results. The significance of the contribution therefore cannot be evaluated until the full text and experimental details are provided. The paper does not include machine-checked proofs, reproducible code, or parameter-free derivations that would independently support the claim.

major comments (3)

[Methodology (MAB formulation)] The MAB formulation is underspecified. The abstract and visible fragments refer to 'optimal branch nodes to prune' and 'feedback from each pruning actions', but the manuscript does not state what constitutes an arm (a node, a subtree, a path?), how the reward is computed, and how the algorithm handles structural dependencies between pruning decisions. Pruning an internal node removes the relevance of pruning its descendants, and the benefit of pruning one node depends on which other nodes have already been pruned. A standard UCB-style bandit with independent arms is not appropriate for this combinatorial structure. Please specify the exact MAB variant, the reward function, and the state-update mechanism, or justify why independent arms are an adequate approximation.
[Experimental evaluation] The central claim of better predictive performance than CCP/REP is unsubstantiated. The abstract gives no dataset names, sample sizes, base tree construction details, hyperparameters, evaluation protocol, or statistical significance tests. The full text is corrupted and unreadable, so I could not locate any tables or figures with experimental results. To make the claim reproducible, the paper must report: dataset characteristics, the decision-tree learning algorithm and its hyperparameters, the CCP/REP implementations and parameter settings, the MAB algorithm and its hyperparameters, the number of runs, and train/validation/test splits, including whether nested resampling was used.
[Reward signal and overfitting] The paper does not say what feedback the MAB receives. If the reward is training-set accuracy, the bandit will overfit; if it is validation-set accuracy and the same validation set is used across many MAB pulls, selection bias can inflate the apparent performance. The manuscript should clearly state how generalization is estimated and ensure that the test set is completely held out until after the pruning decision. Without this, the claimed 'better predictive performance' cannot be trusted.

minor comments (3)

[Abstract] There are typographical and grammatical errors: 'Resolve this problem,pruning operation' should be 'resolve this problem, pruning operation'; 'feedback from each pruning actions' should be 'feedback from each pruning action'.
[Full text / formatting] The submitted PDF is severely corrupted; most of the body text is unreadable mojibake. The authors should resubmit a readable version with properly typeset mathematics and tables. Equations, in particular, need to be clearly displayed.
[Related work / references] The paper mentions MAB algorithms and CCP/REP but does not provide adequate references. Standard references for UCB1, Thompson sampling, CCP, and REP should be added.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central claim is an empirical algorithmic comparison, not a derivation that reduces to its inputs.

full rationale

The available text (abstract plus a heavily corrupted full text) presents a multi-armed-bandit pruning procedure whose claim is "better predictive performance compared to the traditional ones" based on "experimental evaluation on several benchmark datasets." This is an empirical claim, not a first-principles derivation: there is no readable equation in which the output quantity is defined as the fitted input, and no fitted parameter is later relabeled as a prediction. The bandit's feedback is described as coming "from each pruning actions," but the abstract does not state that the same feedback/validation performance is used to select the tree and to report the final result; any claim that the reward is also the test metric would require speculation about the experimental protocol, which the hard rules prohibit. There are no self-citations, no imported uniqueness theorems, and no ansatz smuggled in via citation. The absence of detail about the reward signal and the structural dependence among pruning decisions is a correctness/robustness risk, not circularity. Because no circular step can be exhibited with a quote and a specific reduction, the appropriate finding is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 2 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No parameters or entities can be identified from the abstract. The central claim rests on the experimental methodology, which is not described.

assumptions (2)

domain assumption MAB reward based on validation accuracy is a suitable proxy for generalization
The pruning decisions are guided by feedback from pruning actions, which must reflect how well the tree will perform on unseen data. If the reward is miscalibrated, the pruning process could select nodes that reduce test performance.
domain assumption Experimental comparisons on benchmark datasets are fair and statistically comparable
The claim of better predictive performance requires that baselines (CCP, REP) are tuned fairly and that differences are not due to chance or favorable dataset selection.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Multi-Armed Bandits-Based Optimization of Decision Trees." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/A4AJKS2Y

@misc{pith2026250805957,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Multi-Armed Bandits-Based Optimization of Decision Trees},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/A4AJKS2Y}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.05957}
}

read the original abstract

Decision trees, without appropriate constraints, can easily become overly complex and prone to overfit, capturing noise rather than generalizable patterns. To resolve this problem,pruning operation is a crucial part in optimizing decision trees, as it not only reduces the complexity of trees but also decreases the probability of generating overfit models. The conventional pruning techniques like Cost-Complexity Pruning (CCP) and Reduced Error Pruning (REP) are mostly based on greedy approaches that focus on immediate gains in performance while pruning nodes of the decision tree. However, this might result in a lower generalization in the long run, compromising the robust ability of the tree model when introduced to unseen data samples, particularly when trained with small and complex datasets. To address this challenge, we are proposing a Multi-Armed Bandits (MAB)-based pruning approach, a reinforcement learning (RL)-based technique, that will dynamically prune the tree to generate an optimal decision tree with better generalization. Our proposed approach assumes the pruning process as an exploration-exploitation problem, where we are utilizing the MAB algorithms to find optimal branch nodes to prune based on feedback from each pruning actions. Experimental evaluation on several benchmark datasets, demonstrated that our proposed approach results in better predictive performance compared to the traditional ones. This suggests the potential of utilizing MAB for a dynamic and probabilistic way of decision tree pruning, in turn optimizing the decision tree-based model.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

30 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages

[1]

Castelvecchi, ``Can we open the black box of ai?'' Nature News, vol

D. Castelvecchi, ``Can we open the black box of ai?'' Nature News, vol. 538, no. 7623, p. 20, 2016

work page 2016
[2]

Rudin, ``Stop explaining black box machine learning models for high stakes decisions and use interpretable models instead,'' Nature Machine Intelligence, vol

C. Rudin, ``Stop explaining black box machine learning models for high stakes decisions and use interpretable models instead,'' Nature Machine Intelligence, vol. 1, no. 5, pp. 206--215, 2019

work page 2019
[3]

Blockeel, L

H. Blockeel, L. Devos, B. Fr\'enay, G. Nanfack, and S. Nijssen, ``Decision trees: from efficient prediction to responsible ai,'' Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence, vol. 6, p. 1124553, 2023

work page 2023
[4]

I. D. Mienye and N. Jere, ``A survey of decision trees: Concepts, algorithms, and applications,'' IEEE Access, 2024

work page 2024
[5]

C. Schaffer, ``When does overfitting decrease prediction accuracy in induced decision trees and rule sets?'' in Machine Learning—EWSL-91: European Working Session on Learning Porto, Portugal, March 6--8, 1991 Proceedings 5. 1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4em Springer, 1991, pp. 192--205

work page 1991
[6]

Bramer, ``Pre-pruning classification trees to reduce overfitting in noisy domains,'' in International Conference on Intelligent Data Engineering and Automated Learning

M. Bramer, ``Pre-pruning classification trees to reduce overfitting in noisy domains,'' in International Conference on Intelligent Data Engineering and Automated Learning. 1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4em Springer, 2002, pp. 7--12

work page 2002
[7]

Bertsekas, Reinforcement learning and optimal control

D. Bertsekas, Reinforcement learning and optimal control. 1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4em Athena Scientific, 2019, vol. 1

work page 2019
[8]

Deliu, ``Reinforcement learning for sequential decision making in population research,'' Quality & Quantity, vol

N. Deliu, ``Reinforcement learning for sequential decision making in population research,'' Quality & Quantity, vol. 58, no. 6, pp. 5057--5080, 2024

work page 2024

Show all 30 references

[9]

Breiman, J

L. Breiman, J. Friedman, R. A. Olshen, and C. J. Stone, Classification and Regression Trees, 1st ed. 1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4em Chapman and Hall/CRC, 1984. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1201/9781315139470

1984 doi
[10]

Esposito, D

F. Esposito, D. Malerba, G. Semeraro, and J. Kay, ``A comparative analysis of methods for pruning decision trees,'' IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, vol. 19, no. 5, pp. 476--491, 1997

1997
[11]

L. O. Hall, R. Collins, K. W. Bowyer, and R. Banfield, ``Error-based pruning of decision trees grown on very large data sets can work!'' in 14th IEEE International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence, 2002. (ICTAI 2002). Proceedings. 1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4em IEE...

2002
[12]

H. S. Jomaa, J. Grabocka, and L. Schmidt-Thieme, ``Hyp-rl: Hyperparameter optimization by reinforcement learning,'' arXiv preprint arXiv:1906.11527, 2019

1906 arXiv
[13]

Khurana, H

U. Khurana, H. Samulowitz, and D. Turaga, ``Feature engineering for predictive modeling using reinforcement learning,'' in Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol. 32, no. 1, 2018

2018
[14]

Zoph and Q

B. Zoph and Q. V. Le, ``Neural architecture search with reinforcement learning,'' 2017. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/1611.01578

2017 arXiv
[15]

J. Lin, J. Zhao, Y. Deng, Y. Zhao, W. Zhou, and H. Li, ``Rl-llm-dt: An automatic decision tree generation method based on rl evaluation and llm enhancement,'' arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.11417, 2024

2024 arXiv
[16]

Auer, ``Finite-time analysis of the multiarmed bandit problem,'' 2002

P. Auer, ``Finite-time analysis of the multiarmed bandit problem,'' 2002

2002
[17]

Agrawal and N

S. Agrawal and N. Goyal, ``Analysis of thompson sampling for the multi-armed bandit problem,'' in Conference on learning theory. 1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4em JMLR Workshop and Conference Proceedings, 2012, pp. 39--1

2012
[18]

K. Liu, H. Huang, W. Zhang, A. Hariri, Y. Fu, and K. Hua, ``Multi-armed bandit based feature selection,'' in Proceedings of the 2021 SIAM International Conference on Data Mining (SDM). 1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4em SIAM, 2021, pp. 316--323

2021
[19]

Nowakowski, L

A. Nowakowski, L. Str a k, and W. Wieczorek, ``Mab-optimized binary pso-based feature selection for enhanced classification performance,'' Procedia Computer Science, vol. 225, pp. 4264--4273, 2023

2023
[20]

J. Fu, X. Qin, F. Yang, L. Wang, J. Zhang, Q. Lin, Y. Chen, D. Zhang, S. Rajmohan, and Q. Zhang, ``Autorag-hp: Automatic online hyper-parameter tuning for retrieval-augmented generation,'' arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.19251, 2024

2024 arXiv
[21]

Ameen and S

S. Ameen and S. Vadera, ``Pruning neural networks using multi-armed bandits,'' The Computer Journal, vol. 63, no. 7, pp. 1099--1108, 2020

2020
[22]

Tiwari, R

M. Tiwari, R. Kang, J. Lee, C. Piech, I. Shomorony, S. Thrun, and M. J. Zhang, ``Mabsplit: Faster forest training using multi-armed bandits,'' Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 35, pp. 1223--1237, 2022

2022
[23]

Lomax and S

S. Lomax and S. Vadera, ``A cost-sensitive decision tree learning algorithm based on a multi-armed bandit framework,'' The Computer Journal, vol. 60, no. 7, pp. 941--956, 2017

2017
[24]

Wolberg, O

W. Wolberg, O. Mangasarian, and W. N. Street, `` Breast Cancer Wisconsin (Diagnostic) ,'' UCI Machine Learning Repository, 1993, DOI : https://doi.org/10.24432/C5DW2B

1993 doi
[25]

J. W. Smith, J. E. Everhart, W. C. Dickson, W. C. Knowler, and R. S. Johannes, ``Using the adap learning algorithm to forecast the onset of diabetes mellitus,'' in Proceedings of the Symposium on Computer Applications and Medical Care. 1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4em IEEE Computer ...

1988
[26]

Cukierski, ``Titanic - machine learning from disaster,'' https://kaggle.com/competitions/titanic, 2012, kaggle

W. Cukierski, ``Titanic - machine learning from disaster,'' https://kaggle.com/competitions/titanic, 2012, kaggle

2012
[27]

Sigillito, S

V. Sigillito, S. Wing, L. Hutton, and K. Baker, `` Ionosphere ,'' UCI Machine Learning Repository, 1989, DOI : https://doi.org/10.24432/C5W01B

1989 doi
[28]

Dal Pozzolo, O

A. Dal Pozzolo, O. Caelen, R. A. Johnson, and G. Bontempi, ``Calibrating probability with undersampling for unbalanced classification,'' in Proceedings of the IEEE Symposium on Computational Intelligence and Data Mining (CIDM). 1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4em IEEE, 2015

2015
[29]

H. N. Wei, ``Comparison among methods of decision tree pruning,'' Journal of Southwest Jiaotong University, vol. 40, no. 1, pp. 44--48, 2005

2005
[30]

"6o Effk p ^ O>ddd :ͶsΆ !Dll B &&j4 g uO6L . =M

11em plus .33em minus .07em 4000 4000 100 4000 4000 500 `\.=1000 = #1 \@IEEEnotcompsoconly \@IEEEcompsoconly #1 * [1] 0pt [0pt][0pt] #1 * [1] 0pt [0pt][0pt] #1 * \| ** #1 \@IEEEauthorblockNstyle \@IEEEcompsocnotconfonly \@IEEEauthorblockAstyle \@IEEEcompsocnotconfonly \@IEEEco...

2016

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Castelvecchi, ``Can we open the black box of ai?'' Nature News, vol

D. Castelvecchi, ``Can we open the black box of ai?'' Nature News, vol. 538, no. 7623, p. 20, 2016

work page 2016

[2] [2]

Rudin, ``Stop explaining black box machine learning models for high stakes decisions and use interpretable models instead,'' Nature Machine Intelligence, vol

C. Rudin, ``Stop explaining black box machine learning models for high stakes decisions and use interpretable models instead,'' Nature Machine Intelligence, vol. 1, no. 5, pp. 206--215, 2019

work page 2019

[3] [3]

Blockeel, L

H. Blockeel, L. Devos, B. Fr\'enay, G. Nanfack, and S. Nijssen, ``Decision trees: from efficient prediction to responsible ai,'' Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence, vol. 6, p. 1124553, 2023

work page 2023

[4] [4]

I. D. Mienye and N. Jere, ``A survey of decision trees: Concepts, algorithms, and applications,'' IEEE Access, 2024

work page 2024

[5] [5]

C. Schaffer, ``When does overfitting decrease prediction accuracy in induced decision trees and rule sets?'' in Machine Learning—EWSL-91: European Working Session on Learning Porto, Portugal, March 6--8, 1991 Proceedings 5. 1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4em Springer, 1991, pp. 192--205

work page 1991

[6] [6]

Bramer, ``Pre-pruning classification trees to reduce overfitting in noisy domains,'' in International Conference on Intelligent Data Engineering and Automated Learning

M. Bramer, ``Pre-pruning classification trees to reduce overfitting in noisy domains,'' in International Conference on Intelligent Data Engineering and Automated Learning. 1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4em Springer, 2002, pp. 7--12

work page 2002

[7] [7]

Bertsekas, Reinforcement learning and optimal control

D. Bertsekas, Reinforcement learning and optimal control. 1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4em Athena Scientific, 2019, vol. 1

work page 2019

[8] [8]

Deliu, ``Reinforcement learning for sequential decision making in population research,'' Quality & Quantity, vol

N. Deliu, ``Reinforcement learning for sequential decision making in population research,'' Quality & Quantity, vol. 58, no. 6, pp. 5057--5080, 2024

work page 2024