Ternary Decision Trees with Locally-Adaptive Uncertainty Zones

William Smits

arxiv: 2605.22740 · v1 · pith:7NHI6TMOnew · submitted 2026-05-21 · 💻 cs.LG

Ternary Decision Trees with Locally-Adaptive Uncertainty Zones

William Smits This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-22 07:06 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.LG

keywords decision treesuncertainty zonesternary splitslocal delta estimationprobabilistic routingCARTdecided accuracyboundary uncertainty

0 comments

The pith

Ternary decision trees add locally computed uncertainty zones around each split to raise accuracy on confidently decided instances.

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

The paper introduces ternary decision trees that place a half-width delta uncertainty zone around every optimal threshold found by standard CART splitting. Instances falling inside the zone receive blended predictions from both child subtrees and are flagged as boundary-uncertain, while instances outside receive the usual hard assignment. Five different ways to set delta are derived only from quantities already computed during split selection, so no external noise model or extra data is required. On 72 OpenML-CC18 datasets the probabilistic-routing versions of all five methods produce higher decided accuracy than ordinary CART, with the margin method showing the largest gains and no added hyperparameters.

Core claim

Augmenting each binary split with a locally estimated uncertainty zone of half-width delta lets the tree blend predictions for near-boundary instances and isolate them from the decided set; the resulting decided accuracy rises significantly across 72 datasets, with the margin-based delta choice requiring zero extra parameters and delivering the best accuracy-per-flagged-instance ratio.

What carries the argument

The locally adaptive uncertainty zone of half-width delta centered on the CART optimal threshold, whose width is estimated from split-criterion statistics already present at the node.

If this is right

Downstream applications can treat boundary-uncertain predictions differently without retraining the tree.
The margin method can be dropped into existing CART implementations with no new hyperparameters.
On clean synthetic data the margin delta self-calibrates while node-bootstrap and quality-plateau track irreducible error.
Medical and financial screening tasks can trade a modest flagging rate for measurable gains in decided accuracy.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The same local-delta construction could be inserted into random-forest or gradient-boosted tree ensembles to produce per-instance uncertainty flags without changing the base learners.
Because delta estimation re-uses split-finding quantities, the overhead remains negligible even when trees are grown to full depth on large tabular datasets.
The approach supplies a built-in mechanism for abstention or deferral that may complement or replace post-hoc calibration methods on tree models.

Load-bearing premise

Delta can be computed locally at each node from statistics already available during standard CART split finding without external noise specification or additional data.

What would settle it

Running the same 5-fold protocol on a fresh collection of 72 classification datasets and finding that none of the five delta methods improves decided accuracy relative to CART would falsify the performance claim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.22740 by William Smits.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: Decision boundaries on a two-moons synthetic dataset (quality-plateau δ method, depth 3). Standard CART (left) makes hard binary decisions at every point. The ternary decision tree (right) shows the same two-class color background everywhere — every point receives a class prediction. The hatched overlay marks the boundary-uncertain zone where that prediction is formed by weighted blending of both child su… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Accuracy-coverage tradeoff across 71 OpenML-CC18 datasets (5-fold CV means). Each point represents one (delta method, routing) combination at its mean boundary-uncertain rate (x-axis) and mean decided accuracy (y-axis). The dashed horizontal line marks the CART baseline decided accuracy. Efficiency isolines (η = decided accuracy gain per unit of boundary-uncertain rate) show that methods above and to the … view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Ternary decision tree structure (hard-middle routing, margin δ method, depth 2, Breast Cancer dataset). Each split node routes instances decisively left (≤ θ − δ), decisively right (> θ + δ), or to a dedicated middle subtree for boundary-uncertain instances (dashed orange edges). The uncertainty zone half-width δ (red) is computed locally at each node from the margin to the nearest cross-class training exa… view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: BinaryTernaryTree structure (probabilistic routing, margin δ method, depth 2, Breast Cancer dataset). Each split node has two physical children, identical in structure to standard CART. The uncertainty zone [θ−δ, θ+δ] (blend range, shown in gray italic) is not a physical branch: instances in this zone receive predictions formed by distance-weighted blending of both child subtree outputs simultaneously, wit… view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Decision trees partition the feature space using hard binary thresholds, assigning identical confidence to instances far from a decision boundary and to those directly on it. We introduce ternary decision trees, which augment each split node with an uncertainty zone of half-width delta centered on the optimal threshold. Instances in this zone receive predictions formed by weighted blending of both child subtrees and are flagged as boundary-uncertain, signaling that downstream applications may treat these predictions differently. Crucially, delta is computed locally at each node from statistics already available during standard CART split finding, requiring no external noise specification. 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). Evaluated across 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 of boundary-uncertain flagging rate), wins on 42 of 72 datasets, and requires zero additional hyperparameters. Analysis on three Breiman synthetic benchmarks reveals that margin is self-calibrating on clean data while node-bootstrap and quality-plateau best track theoretical irreducible error. Experiments on four medical and financial datasets demonstrate practical value: on mammography, node-bootstrap achieves +0.71% decided accuracy by flagging 10.8% of screening cases as boundary-uncertain.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

This paper adds ternary splits and locally computed uncertainty zones to CART trees, with five delta estimators that deliver measurable gains on decided accuracy across 72 datasets while staying inside standard tree computations.

read the letter

Hi colleague, the main point is that this work turns binary decision tree splits into ternary ones by adding an uncertainty zone of width delta around each threshold. Instances inside the zone get blended predictions from both children and get flagged as boundary-uncertain. All five delta estimators are built from quantities already computed during normal CART split search, so there is no extra noise model or external data required. The margin estimator, which uses distance to the nearest opposite-class training point, needs zero new hyperparameters and wins on 42 of the 72 OpenML-CC18 datasets under 5-fold CV. Wilcoxon tests show all five methods improve decided accuracy over plain CART at p < 0.001. The paper also checks calibration on Breiman synthetic data and runs small case studies on mammography and financial data where flagging roughly 10 percent of cases buys a modest accuracy lift on the rest. The full text confirms the probabilistic routing and tie handling stay within the node statistics already available, so the central empirical claim is not circular. The soft spots are proportionate to the scope. The gains are real but come from setting aside or down-weighting the hard boundary cases, which is the expected trade-off rather than a surprise. The work remains an incremental refinement inside the decision-tree family rather than a broad shift in modeling approach. No load-bearing flaws appear in the reported protocol or the derivation of the deltas. This paper is for people who already use trees in applied settings and want a lightweight way to surface uncertain predictions without switching to ensembles or neural nets. A reader focused on interpretable models or high-stakes domains would get concrete value from the efficiency numbers and the zero-hyperparameter option. It deserves a serious referee because the evaluation is broad, the implementation details are reproducible from the text, and the practical motivation is clear.

Referee Report

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper introduces ternary decision trees that augment standard CART splits with a locally computed uncertainty zone of half-width delta centered on each threshold. Instances inside the zone receive blended predictions from both child subtrees via probabilistic routing and are flagged as boundary-uncertain. Five delta estimators are proposed (quality-plateau, class-overlap, gain-ratio, node-bootstrap, margin), each derived only from statistics already available during CART node processing. On 72 OpenML-CC18 datasets with 5-fold CV, all five methods with probabilistic routing significantly outperform CART on decided accuracy (Wilcoxon signed-rank, p<0.001); the margin method wins on 42 datasets, requires zero extra hyperparameters, and shows the best efficiency (0.104 accuracy gain per unit flagging rate). Additional experiments on Breiman synthetics and four medical/financial datasets are reported.

Significance. If the results hold, the contribution is a lightweight, locally adaptive mechanism for injecting uncertainty awareness into decision trees without external noise models or new hyperparameters in the leading case. The empirical scale (72 datasets), the efficiency metric, the self-calibration observation on clean data, and the practical gains on mammography (+0.71% decided accuracy by flagging 10.8%) are concrete strengths. The approach integrates directly into existing CART implementations, which increases its potential impact on interpretable modeling pipelines.

major comments (2)

Abstract and experimental protocol: the claim that all five methods with probabilistic routing significantly outperform CART on decided accuracy (Wilcoxon p<0.001) is load-bearing, yet the manuscript supplies no explicit description of the probabilistic routing weighting scheme, tie-breaking rule inside the delta zone, or any post-hoc dataset or hyperparameter selection steps that could have influenced the 72-dataset aggregate results.
Methods section on delta estimators: while the text states that each of the five delta methods uses only statistics already present in standard CART split finding, the manuscript does not provide the explicit formulas or pseudocode showing how, for example, the margin estimator reduces to nearest cross-class distance without introducing new computations; this detail is required to confirm the “no external noise” claim.

minor comments (3)

Abstract: define “decided accuracy” on first use rather than leaving it implicit.
Results section: a compact table listing the five delta estimators together with their computational requirements and hyperparameter count would improve readability.
Figure captions: ensure that all synthetic-benchmark plots include the theoretical irreducible-error reference line for direct visual comparison.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive review and the recommendation for minor revision. The comments correctly identify places where additional technical detail will improve clarity and reproducibility. We address each major comment below and have revised the manuscript to incorporate the requested specifications.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: Abstract and experimental protocol: the claim that all five methods with probabilistic routing significantly outperform CART on decided accuracy (Wilcoxon p<0.001) is load-bearing, yet the manuscript supplies no explicit description of the probabilistic routing weighting scheme, tie-breaking rule inside the delta zone, or any post-hoc dataset or hyperparameter selection steps that could have influenced the 72-dataset aggregate results.

Authors: We agree that the probabilistic routing procedure and tie-breaking rule were described at too high a level. In the revised manuscript we have added an explicit subsection (Section 3.3) that defines the weighting scheme: for an instance x inside the uncertainty zone of width 2δ centered at threshold t, the left-child probability is p_left = 0.5 + (x − t)/(2δ), with p_right = 1 − p_left. The final prediction is the weighted average of the two child subtree outputs. Tie-breaking (when p_left = 0.5) assigns the instance to the majority class of the parent node. No post-hoc dataset selection or per-dataset hyperparameter tuning occurred; all five estimators were evaluated under identical 5-fold CV on the full set of 72 OpenML-CC18 datasets. We have also inserted a short paragraph confirming the absence of any selection steps that could bias the aggregate Wilcoxon results. revision: yes
Referee: Methods section on delta estimators: while the text states that each of the five delta methods uses only statistics already present in standard CART split finding, the manuscript does not provide the explicit formulas or pseudocode showing how, for example, the margin estimator reduces to nearest cross-class distance without introducing new computations; this detail is required to confirm the “no external noise” claim.

Authors: We concur that explicit formulas are required. The margin estimator is defined directly from the sorted feature values already examined during CART split search: after the optimal threshold t is found, δ_margin = (1/2) × min{|x_i − x_j| : x_i belongs to the left child, x_j to the right child, and x_i, x_j are adjacent in the sorted list across the class boundary}. This uses only the same O(n log n) sorted array and class labels that CART already maintains; no additional distance computations or external models are introduced. We have added the closed-form expressions for all five estimators together with a compact pseudocode block (Algorithm 1) in the revised Methods section to make the “statistics already present in CART” claim fully verifiable. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity

full rationale

The paper defines five delta-estimation methods directly from quantities already computed during standard CART split selection (split-criterion curves, class distributions, entropy, resampling variance, and cross-class margins) and evaluates the resulting ternary trees via 5-fold cross-validation on 72 independent OpenML-CC18 datasets. No step in the described derivation reduces a claimed prediction or performance metric to a fitted parameter by construction, nor does any central claim rest on a self-citation chain or imported uniqueness theorem. The empirical outperformance results are therefore independent of the internal definitions of the delta estimators.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 1 invented entities

The approach rests on the domain assumption that CART split statistics suffice to estimate a meaningful local uncertainty width without external noise models, plus the empirical claim that probabilistic routing on the resulting zones improves decided accuracy.

axioms (1)

domain assumption Statistics already computed during standard CART split finding are sufficient to estimate a useful delta at each node
Abstract states that delta is computed locally from these statistics and requires no external noise specification.

invented entities (1)

uncertainty zone of half-width delta no independent evidence
purpose: To identify boundary instances for blended prediction and flagging
New construct introduced to augment binary splits; no independent falsifiable prediction outside the reported experiments is described.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5828 in / 1384 out tokens · 38675 ms · 2026-05-22T07:06:13.358946+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

IndisputableMonolith/Cost/FunctionalEquation.lean washburn_uniqueness_aczel unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

delta is computed locally at each node from statistics already available during standard CART split finding
IndisputableMonolith/Foundation/AlphaCoordinateFixation.lean J_uniquely_calibrated_via_higher_derivative unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

margin method: distance to nearest cross-class training example

What do these tags mean?

matches: The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports: The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends: The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses: The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts: The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear: Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

21 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

[1]

Studia Logica90(1), 69–92 (2008)

Avron, A., Konikowska, B.: Rough sets and 3-valued logics. Studia Logica90(1), 69–92 (2008)

work page 2008
[2]

Journal of Machine Learning Research9, 1823–1840 (2008)

Bartlett, P.L., Wegkamp, M.H.: Classification with a reject option using a hinge loss. Journal of Machine Learning Research9, 1823–1840 (2008)

work page 2008
[3]

Bischl, G

Bischl, B., Casalicchio, G., Feurer, M., Hutter, F., Lang, M., Mantovani, R.G., van Rijn, J.N., Vanschoren, J.: OpenML benchmarking suites. arXiv preprint arXiv:1708.03731 (2021)

work page arXiv 2021
[4]

Machine Learning24(2), 123–140 (1996)

Breiman, L.: Bagging predictors. Machine Learning24(2), 123–140 (1996)

work page 1996
[5]

Wadsworth (1984)

Breiman, L., Friedman, J., Olshen, R., Stone, C.: Classification and Regression Trees. Wadsworth (1984)

work page 1984
[7]

Machine Learning20(3), 273–297 (1995) 14 William Smits

Cortes, C., Vapnik, V.: Support-vector networks. Machine Learning20(3), 273–297 (1995) 14 William Smits

work page 1995
[8]

Pierobon, I

Cover, T.M., Hart, P.: Nearest neighbor pattern classification. IEEE Transac- tionsonInformationTheory13(1),21–27(1967).https://doi.org/10.1109/TIT. 1967.1053964

work page doi:10.1109/tit 1967
[9]

Journal of Machine Learning Research7, 1–30 (2006)

Demšar, J.: Statistical comparisons of classifiers over multiple data sets. Journal of Machine Learning Research7, 1–30 (2006)

work page 2006
[10]

Distilling a Neural Network Into a Soft Decision Tree

Frosst, N., Hinton, G.: Distilling a neural network into a soft decision tree. arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.09784 (2017)

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017
[11]

European Journal of Operational Research129(1), 1–47 (2001)

Greco,S.,Matarazzo,B.,Słowiński,R.:Roughsetstheoryformulticriteriadecision analysis. European Journal of Operational Research129(1), 1–47 (2001)

work page 2001
[12]

In: Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Pattern Recognition

Irsoy, O., Yildiz, O.T., Alpaydin, E.: Soft decision trees. In: Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Pattern Recognition. pp. 1121–1124 (2012)

work page 2012
[13]

In: Synthetic Data for Artificial Intelligence and Ma- chine Learning: Tools, Techniques, and Applications

Kent, J.S., Ménager, D.H.: Indecision trees: Learning argument-based reasoning under quantified uncertainty. In: Synthetic Data for Artificial Intelligence and Ma- chine Learning: Tools, Techniques, and Applications. Proceedings of SPIE, vol. 12529, pp. 296–307. SPIE (2023).https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2663380

work page doi:10.1117/12.2663380 2023
[14]

Fuzzy Sets and Systems138(2), 221–254 (2003)

Olaru, C., Wehenkel, L.: A complete fuzzy decision tree technique. Fuzzy Sets and Systems138(2), 221–254 (2003)

work page 2003
[15]

International Journal of Computer & Information Sciences 11(5), 341–356 (1982)

Pawlak, Z.: Rough sets. International Journal of Computer & Information Sciences 11(5), 341–356 (1982)

work page 1982
[16]

12 (2011)

Pedregosa, F., et al.: Scikit-learn: Machine learning in Python, vol. 12 (2011)

work page 2011
[17]

Morgan Kaufmann (1993)

Quinlan, J.R.: C4.5: Programs for Machine Learning. Morgan Kaufmann (1993)

work page 1993
[18]

ACM SIGKDD Explorations Newsletter15(2), 49–60 (2014)

Vanschoren, J., van Rijn, J.N., Bischl, B., Torgo, L.: OpenML: Networked science in machine learning. ACM SIGKDD Explorations Newsletter15(2), 49–60 (2014)

work page 2014
[19]

Information Sciences 180(3), 341–353 (2010)

Yao, Y.: Three-way decisions with probabilistic rough sets. Information Sciences 180(3), 341–353 (2010)

work page 2010
[20]

In: Rough Sets and Current Trends in Computing (RSCTC 2012)

Yao, Y.: An outline of a theory of three-way decisions. In: Rough Sets and Current Trends in Computing (RSCTC 2012). Lecture Notes in Com- puter Science, vol. 7413, pp. 1–17. Springer (2012).https://doi.org/10.1007/ 978-3-642-32115-3_1

work page 2012
[21]

Journal of Statistical Planning and Infer- ence105(1), 5–21 (2002)

Zaffalon, M.: The naive credal classifier. Journal of Statistical Planning and Infer- ence105(1), 5–21 (2002)

work page 2002
[22]

In: Rough Sets – International Joint Conference, IJCRS 2019

Zhi, H., Leung, Y., Liu, J.: Three-way classification: Ambiguity and abstention in machine learning. In: Rough Sets – International Joint Conference, IJCRS 2019. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 11499, pp. 280–294. Springer (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-22815-6_22 Appendix A Per-Dataset Results on OpenML-CC18 Table 4 reports decided acc...

work page doi:10.1007/978-3-030-22815-6_22 2019

[1] [1]

Studia Logica90(1), 69–92 (2008)

Avron, A., Konikowska, B.: Rough sets and 3-valued logics. Studia Logica90(1), 69–92 (2008)

work page 2008

[2] [2]

Journal of Machine Learning Research9, 1823–1840 (2008)

Bartlett, P.L., Wegkamp, M.H.: Classification with a reject option using a hinge loss. Journal of Machine Learning Research9, 1823–1840 (2008)

work page 2008

[3] [3]

Bischl, G

Bischl, B., Casalicchio, G., Feurer, M., Hutter, F., Lang, M., Mantovani, R.G., van Rijn, J.N., Vanschoren, J.: OpenML benchmarking suites. arXiv preprint arXiv:1708.03731 (2021)

work page arXiv 2021

[4] [4]

Machine Learning24(2), 123–140 (1996)

Breiman, L.: Bagging predictors. Machine Learning24(2), 123–140 (1996)

work page 1996

[5] [5]

Wadsworth (1984)

Breiman, L., Friedman, J., Olshen, R., Stone, C.: Classification and Regression Trees. Wadsworth (1984)

work page 1984

[6] [7]

Machine Learning20(3), 273–297 (1995) 14 William Smits

Cortes, C., Vapnik, V.: Support-vector networks. Machine Learning20(3), 273–297 (1995) 14 William Smits

work page 1995

[7] [8]

Pierobon, I

Cover, T.M., Hart, P.: Nearest neighbor pattern classification. IEEE Transac- tionsonInformationTheory13(1),21–27(1967).https://doi.org/10.1109/TIT. 1967.1053964

work page doi:10.1109/tit 1967

[8] [9]

Journal of Machine Learning Research7, 1–30 (2006)

Demšar, J.: Statistical comparisons of classifiers over multiple data sets. Journal of Machine Learning Research7, 1–30 (2006)

work page 2006

[9] [10]

Distilling a Neural Network Into a Soft Decision Tree

Frosst, N., Hinton, G.: Distilling a neural network into a soft decision tree. arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.09784 (2017)

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

[10] [11]

European Journal of Operational Research129(1), 1–47 (2001)

Greco,S.,Matarazzo,B.,Słowiński,R.:Roughsetstheoryformulticriteriadecision analysis. European Journal of Operational Research129(1), 1–47 (2001)

work page 2001

[11] [12]

In: Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Pattern Recognition

Irsoy, O., Yildiz, O.T., Alpaydin, E.: Soft decision trees. In: Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Pattern Recognition. pp. 1121–1124 (2012)

work page 2012

[12] [13]

In: Synthetic Data for Artificial Intelligence and Ma- chine Learning: Tools, Techniques, and Applications

Kent, J.S., Ménager, D.H.: Indecision trees: Learning argument-based reasoning under quantified uncertainty. In: Synthetic Data for Artificial Intelligence and Ma- chine Learning: Tools, Techniques, and Applications. Proceedings of SPIE, vol. 12529, pp. 296–307. SPIE (2023).https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2663380

work page doi:10.1117/12.2663380 2023

[13] [14]

Fuzzy Sets and Systems138(2), 221–254 (2003)

Olaru, C., Wehenkel, L.: A complete fuzzy decision tree technique. Fuzzy Sets and Systems138(2), 221–254 (2003)

work page 2003

[14] [15]

International Journal of Computer & Information Sciences 11(5), 341–356 (1982)

Pawlak, Z.: Rough sets. International Journal of Computer & Information Sciences 11(5), 341–356 (1982)

work page 1982

[15] [16]

12 (2011)

Pedregosa, F., et al.: Scikit-learn: Machine learning in Python, vol. 12 (2011)

work page 2011

[16] [17]

Morgan Kaufmann (1993)

Quinlan, J.R.: C4.5: Programs for Machine Learning. Morgan Kaufmann (1993)

work page 1993

[17] [18]

ACM SIGKDD Explorations Newsletter15(2), 49–60 (2014)

Vanschoren, J., van Rijn, J.N., Bischl, B., Torgo, L.: OpenML: Networked science in machine learning. ACM SIGKDD Explorations Newsletter15(2), 49–60 (2014)

work page 2014

[18] [19]

Information Sciences 180(3), 341–353 (2010)

Yao, Y.: Three-way decisions with probabilistic rough sets. Information Sciences 180(3), 341–353 (2010)

work page 2010

[19] [20]

In: Rough Sets and Current Trends in Computing (RSCTC 2012)

Yao, Y.: An outline of a theory of three-way decisions. In: Rough Sets and Current Trends in Computing (RSCTC 2012). Lecture Notes in Com- puter Science, vol. 7413, pp. 1–17. Springer (2012).https://doi.org/10.1007/ 978-3-642-32115-3_1

work page 2012

[20] [21]

Journal of Statistical Planning and Infer- ence105(1), 5–21 (2002)

Zaffalon, M.: The naive credal classifier. Journal of Statistical Planning and Infer- ence105(1), 5–21 (2002)

work page 2002

[21] [22]

In: Rough Sets – International Joint Conference, IJCRS 2019

Zhi, H., Leung, Y., Liu, J.: Three-way classification: Ambiguity and abstention in machine learning. In: Rough Sets – International Joint Conference, IJCRS 2019. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 11499, pp. 280–294. Springer (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-22815-6_22 Appendix A Per-Dataset Results on OpenML-CC18 Table 4 reports decided acc...

work page doi:10.1007/978-3-030-22815-6_22 2019