pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.24680 · v1 · pith:3OI5JPPTnew · submitted 2026-05-23 · 💻 cs.LG

Trajectory-Based Difficulty Scoring for Reliable Learning on Tabular Data

Tomer Lavi , Bracha Shapira , Nadav Rappoport This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-30 14:46 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.LG
keywords trajectory-based difficulty scoringtabular datagradient boosted treesinstance hardnessactive learningconformal predictionselective predictionerror analysis
0
0 comments X

The pith

Prediction trajectories across boosted trees yield an instance difficulty score that ranks error better than uncertainty baselines.

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

The paper proposes scoring the difficulty of individual tabular instances for gradient-boosted ensembles by examining the sequence of partial predictions made by successive trees. From each instance's cumulative prediction path the authors extract a small set of descriptors such as variance, number of oscillation peaks, sign changes, and tail stability. These descriptors feed a lightweight regressor that estimates held-out loss; an empirical CDF then converts the estimate into a calibrated score between zero and one. The resulting signal correlates strongly with actual error across many tabular datasets and ensemble sizes, outperforming prior instance-hardness and uncertainty measures on classification while remaining competitive on regression. The same score is shown to improve label-efficient active learning, selective prediction, and stratified conformal prediction.

Core claim

TDS derives an instance-level difficulty score from per-tree cumulative prediction trajectories by computing interpretable descriptors (variance, oscillation peaks, sign switches, tail stability) and training a regression model to predict held-out loss, then calibrating the output via empirical CDF into a [0,1] ranking score. Across diverse tabular benchmarks this score exhibits strong rank correlation with error and outperforms established baselines on classification tasks.

What carries the argument

Per-tree cumulative prediction trajectories whose descriptors (variance, oscillation peaks, sign switches, tail stability) are regressed to held-out loss and calibrated by empirical CDF.

If this is right

  • Difficulty-driven active learning requires fewer labels to reach target accuracy.
  • Difficulty-thresholded selective prediction improves the risk-coverage trade-off.
  • TDS-stratified Mondrian conformal prediction produces more uniform conditional coverage.
  • Clustering high-TDS instances by SHAP attributions surfaces coherent failure modes tied to narrow feature ranges.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same trajectory descriptors could be tracked over time to detect when an instance's difficulty changes due to distribution shift.
  • TDS might serve as a diagnostic for deciding whether to collect more data in specific feature subspaces identified by the failure-mode clusters.
  • Because the method relies only on the ensemble's internal predictions, it could transfer to other additive ensembles without retraining the base model.

Load-bearing premise

The chosen trajectory descriptors contain enough information that a lightweight regression model trained on them can predict held-out loss for new instances.

What would settle it

A new tabular benchmark where the rank correlation between TDS and observed error falls below that of standard uncertainty baselines, or where TDS fails to improve active-learning label efficiency.

read the original abstract

Gradient-boosted trees achieve strong performance on tabular data, yet often leave a long tail of poorly predicted instances. We introduce a Trajectory-based Difficulty Score (TDS), an instance-level difficulty estimator for boosted ensembles derived from per-tree cumulative prediction trajectories. For each instance, we compute interpretable trajectory descriptors (e.g., variance, oscillation peaks, sign switches, and tail stability) and train a lightweight regression model to predict held-out loss. An empirical CDF calibrates the resulting signal into a score in $[0,1]$ that supports ranking hard cases. Across diverse tabular benchmarks and ensemble sizes, TDS exhibits strong rank correlation with error and outperforms established instance-hardness and uncertainty baselines on classification, while remaining competitive on regression. We then show how a single difficulty signal improves multiple data mining workflows: difficulty-driven active learning for label-efficient training, difficulty-thresholded selective prediction for improved risk-coverage trade-offs, and TDS-stratified (Mondrian) conformal prediction for more uniform conditional coverage. Finally, clustering high-TDS instances using SHAP attributions reveals coherent failure modes characterized by compact feature-value ranges, supporting error analysis and targeted data acquisition.

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.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper introduces Trajectory-based Difficulty Score (TDS), an instance-level difficulty estimator for gradient-boosted tree ensembles on tabular data. For each instance, interpretable descriptors (variance, oscillation peaks, sign switches, tail stability) are extracted from per-tree cumulative prediction trajectories; a lightweight regression model is trained to predict held-out loss from these features; an ECDF then calibrates the output to a [0,1] ranking score. The manuscript reports strong rank correlation with error across tabular benchmarks and ensemble sizes, outperformance versus instance-hardness and uncertainty baselines on classification (competitive on regression), and downstream improvements in active learning, selective prediction, Mondrian conformal prediction, and SHAP-based clustering of failure modes.

Significance. If the empirical results hold with proper controls, TDS supplies a practical, ensemble-specific signal for identifying hard instances that improves multiple reliability workflows without requiring additional model training. The trajectory-descriptor approach is a concrete contribution to instance difficulty estimation on tabular data, where boosting remains dominant, and the applications demonstrate utility beyond simple ranking. The clustering analysis of high-TDS instances offers a route to interpretable error analysis that could inform targeted data collection.

major comments (2)
  1. [§4 and abstract] §4 (Experiments) and abstract: the central claims of strong rank correlation and outperformance are stated without any quantitative tables, specific correlation coefficients, or baseline comparison numbers in the provided text; the absence of these results prevents verification of the reported superiority and makes the soundness of the empirical pipeline impossible to assess.
  2. [Method] Method section (trajectory regression pipeline): the lightweight regressor is trained to predict held-out loss on the same data distribution whose instances are later ranked by the calibrated TDS; no description is given of how the held-out loss target is computed, whether the regressor uses cross-validation or a held-out set disjoint from the ranking evaluation, or any ablation removing individual descriptors, all of which are load-bearing for the claim that the descriptors suffice to predict difficulty.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Method] Notation for the trajectory descriptors is introduced without explicit formulas or pseudocode; adding a small table or equations defining variance, oscillation peaks, etc., would improve reproducibility.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive comments on our work. We provide point-by-point responses to the major comments below and will make the suggested changes to enhance the manuscript's clarity and rigor.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§4 and abstract] §4 (Experiments) and abstract: the central claims of strong rank correlation and outperformance are stated without any quantitative tables, specific correlation coefficients, or baseline comparison numbers in the provided text; the absence of these results prevents verification of the reported superiority and makes the soundness of the empirical pipeline impossible to assess.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the abstract and §4 as presented in the reviewed version lack specific quantitative values and table references for the rank correlations and baseline comparisons. To address this, we will revise the abstract to include key numerical results (such as average Spearman rank correlations across datasets) and ensure that §4 explicitly references and summarizes the data from the quantitative tables (e.g., Table 1 for correlations and Table 2 for comparisons). This will make the empirical claims verifiable without requiring readers to infer from figures alone. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Method] Method section (trajectory regression pipeline): the lightweight regressor is trained to predict held-out loss on the same data distribution whose instances are later ranked by the calibrated TDS; no description is given of how the held-out loss target is computed, whether the regressor uses cross-validation or a held-out set disjoint from the ranking evaluation, or any ablation removing individual descriptors, all of which are load-bearing for the claim that the descriptors suffice to predict difficulty.

    Authors: We agree that additional methodological details are necessary. In the revised manuscript, we will expand the method section to specify: (i) the held-out loss is computed on a validation set disjoint from both the training of the main model and the final ranking evaluation; (ii) the lightweight regressor is trained using cross-validation on this held-out data; and (iii) we will include an ablation analysis demonstrating the contribution of each trajectory descriptor. These clarifications will confirm the validity of the pipeline. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity identified

full rationale

The paper describes an empirical pipeline: trajectory descriptors (variance, oscillation peaks, etc.) from cumulative tree predictions are fed to a lightweight regressor trained to predict held-out loss, followed by ECDF calibration to produce a [0,1] difficulty score. Central claims concern rank correlation with error and outperformance versus baselines on tabular benchmarks; these are external empirical evaluations. No equations or steps reduce by construction to inputs, no self-citation chains are load-bearing, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The method is self-contained against independent benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 2 invented entities

Review performed on abstract only; ledger therefore limited to elements explicitly named in the provided text.

free parameters (1)
  • lightweight regression model parameters
    Coefficients of the regression model that maps trajectory descriptors to predicted held-out loss are fitted to data.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Gradient-boosted trees achieve strong performance on tabular data yet often leave a long tail of poorly predicted instances.
    Opening motivation stated in the abstract.
invented entities (2)
  • Trajectory-based Difficulty Score (TDS) no independent evidence
    purpose: Instance-level difficulty estimator derived from prediction trajectories
    Newly defined signal introduced in the work.
  • trajectory descriptors (variance, oscillation peaks, sign switches, tail stability) no independent evidence
    purpose: Features extracted from per-tree cumulative prediction trajectories
    Defined within the method.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5730 in / 1496 out tokens · 54669 ms · 2026-06-30T14:46:38.305173+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Information Fusion81, 84–90 (2022)

    Shwartz-Ziv, R., Armon, A.: Tabular data: Deep learning is not all you need. Information Fusion81, 84–90 (2022)

    2022

  2. [2]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.01147 (2024)

    Van Breugel, B., Van Der Schaar, M.: Why tabular foundation models should be a research priority. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.01147 (2024)

    work page arXiv 2024

  3. [3]

    In: Proceedings of the 22nd Acm Sigkdd International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, pp

    Chen, T., Guestrin, C.: Xgboost: A scalable tree boosting system. In: Proceedings of the 22nd Acm Sigkdd International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, pp. 785–794 (2016)

    2016

  4. [4]

    Annals of statistics, 1189–1232 (2001)

    Friedman, J.H.: Greedy function approximation: a gradient boosting machine. Annals of statistics, 1189–1232 (2001)

    2001

  5. [5]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:1912.02178 (2019)

    Jiang, Y., Neyshabur, B., Mobahi, H., Krishnan, D., Bengio, S.: Fantastic gen- eralization measures and where to find them. arXiv preprint arXiv:1912.02178 (2019)

    work page arXiv 1912

  6. [6]

    Advances in neural information processing systems31(2018)

    Malinin, A., Gales, M.: Predictive uncertainty estimation via prior networks. Advances in neural information processing systems31(2018)

    2018

  7. [7]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp

    Agarwal, C., D’souza, D., Hooker, S.: Estimating example difficulty using variance of gradients. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 10368–10378 (2022)

    2022

  8. [8]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:1812.05159 (2018)

    Toneva, M., Sordoni, A., Combes, R.T.d., Trischler, A., Bengio, Y., Gordon, G.J.: An empirical study of example forgetting during deep neural network learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1812.05159 (2018)

    work page arXiv 2018

  9. [9]

    Machine learning95(2), 225–256 (2014)

    Smith, M.R., Martinez, T., Giraud-Carrier, C.: An instance level analysis of data complexity. Machine learning95(2), 225–256 (2014)

    2014

  10. [10]

    Technomet- rics19(1), 15–18 (1977)

    Cook, R.D.: Detection of influential observation in linear regression. Technomet- rics19(1), 15–18 (1977)

    1977

  11. [11]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems33, 8602–8613 26 (2020)

    Zhou, T., Wang, S., Bilmes, J.: Curriculum learning by dynamic instance hardness. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems33, 8602–8613 26 (2020)

    2020

  12. [12]

    IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence24(3), 289–300 (2002)

    Ho, T.K., Basu, M.: Complexity measures of supervised classification problems. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence24(3), 289–300 (2002)

    2002

  13. [13]

    Journal of machine learning research7(6) (2006)

    Meinshausen, N., Ridgeway, G.: Quantile regression forests. Journal of machine learning research7(6) (2006)

    2006

  14. [14]

    Machine learning45(1), 5–32 (2001)

    Breiman, L.: Random forests. Machine learning45(1), 5–32 (2001)

    2001

  15. [15]

    Information fusion6(1), 5–20 (2005)

    Brown, G., Wyatt, J., Harris, R., Yao, X.: Diversity creation methods: a survey and categorisation. Information fusion6(1), 5–20 (2005)

    2005

  16. [16]

    Journal of Machine Learning Research (2009)

    Rudin, C., Schapire, R.E.: Margin-based ranking and an equivalence between adaboost and rankboost. Journal of Machine Learning Research (2009)

    2009

  17. [17]

    In: International Conference on Machine Learning, pp

    Telgarsky, M.: Margins, shrinkage, and boosting. In: International Conference on Machine Learning, pp. 307–315 (2013). PMLR

    2013

  18. [18]

    Advances in neural information processing systems30(2017)

    Lundberg, S.M., Lee, S.-I.: A unified approach to interpreting model predictions. Advances in neural information processing systems30(2017)

    2017

  19. [19]

    Nature machine intelligence2(1), 56–67 (2020)

    Lundberg, S.M., Erion, G., Chen, H., DeGrave, A., Prutkin, J.M., Nair, B., Katz, R., Himmelfarb, J., Bansal, N., Lee, S.-I.: From local explanations to global under- standing with explainable ai for trees. Nature machine intelligence2(1), 56–67 (2020)

    2020

  20. [20]

    Advances in neural information processing systems33, 17212–17223 (2020)

    Covert, I., Lundberg, S.M., Lee, S.-I.: Understanding global feature contributions with additive importance measures. Advances in neural information processing systems33, 17212–17223 (2020)

    2020

  21. [21]

    Information fusion58, 82–115 (2020)

    Arrieta, A.B., D´ ıaz-Rodr´ ıguez, N., Del Ser, J., Bennetot, A., Tabik, S., Barbado, A., Garc´ ıa, S., Gil-L´ opez, S., Molina, D., Benjamins, R.,et al.: Explainable artifi- cial intelligence (xai): Concepts, taxonomies, opportunities and challenges toward responsible ai. Information fusion58, 82–115 (2020)

    2020

  22. [22]

    University of Wisconsin-Madison Department of Computer Sciences (2009)

    Settles, B.: Active learning literature survey. University of Wisconsin-Madison Department of Computer Sciences (2009)

    2009

  23. [23]

    Advances in neural information processing systems30(2017)

    Geifman, Y., El-Yaniv, R.: Selective classification for deep neural networks. Advances in neural information processing systems30(2017)

    2017

  24. [24]

    Springer (2005)

    Vovk, V., Gammerman, A., Shafer, G.: Algorithmic learning in a random world. Springer (2005)

    2005

  25. [25]

    A Gentle Introduction to Conformal Prediction and Distribution-Free Uncertainty Quantification

    Angelopoulos, A.N., Bates, S.: A gentle introduction to conformal prediction and distribution-free uncertainty quantification. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.07511 27 (2021)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  26. [26]

    https://kaggle.com/competitions/sberbank-russian-housing-market

    Matveev, A., Sidorova, A., DataCanary: Sberbank Russian Housing Mar- ket. https://kaggle.com/competitions/sberbank-russian-housing-market. Kaggle (2017)

    2017

  27. [27]

    In: International Conference on Machine Learning, pp

    Guo, C., Pleiss, G., Sun, Y., Weinberger, K.Q.: On calibration of modern neu- ral networks. In: International Conference on Machine Learning, pp. 1321–1330 (2017). PMLR

    2017

  28. [28]

    UCI Machine Learning Repository

    Fanaee-T, H.: Bike Sharing. UCI Machine Learning Repository. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24432/C5W894 (2013)

    work page doi:10.24432/c5w894 2013

  29. [29]

    Journal of Machine Learning Research12, 2825–2830 (2011)

    Pedregosa, F., Varoquaux, G., Gramfort, A., Michel, V., Thirion, B., Grisel, O., Blondel, M., Prettenhofer, P., Weiss, R., Dubourg, V., Vanderplas, J., Passos, A., Cournapeau, D., Brucher, M., Perrot, M., Duchesnay, E.: Scikit-learn: Machine learning in Python. Journal of Machine Learning Research12, 2825–2830 (2011)

    2011

  30. [30]

    Schubert, S

    Graf, F.K., H.-P. Schubert, S. M. Poelsterl, Cavallaro, A.: Relative loca- tion of CT slices on axial axis. UCI Machine Learning Repository. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24432/C5CP6G (2011)

    work page doi:10.24432/c5cp6g 2011

  31. [31]

    UCI Machine Learning Repository

    Rana, P.: Physicochemical Properties of Protein Tertiary Structure. UCI Machine Learning Repository. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24432/C5QW3H (2013)

    work page doi:10.24432/c5qw3h 2013

  32. [32]

    UCI Machine Learning Repository

    Hamidieh, K.: Superconductivty Data. UCI Machine Learning Repository. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24432/C53P47 (2018)

    work page doi:10.24432/c53p47 2018

  33. [33]

    UCI Machine Learning Repository

    A., C.P.C., Almeida, F., Matos, T., Reis, J.: Wine Quality. UCI Machine Learning Repository. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24432/C56S3T (2009)

    work page doi:10.24432/c56s3t 2009

  34. [34]

    UCI Machine Learning Repository

    Bertin-Mahieux, T.: Year Prediction MSD. UCI Machine Learning Repository. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24432/C50K61 (2011)

    work page doi:10.24432/c50k61 2011

  35. [35]

    Becker, B

    Becker, B., Kohavi, R.: Adult. UCI Machine Learning Repository. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24432/C5XW20 (1996)

    work page doi:10.24432/c5xw20 1996

  36. [36]

    UCI Machine Learning Repository

    Lohweg, V.: Banknote Authentication. UCI Machine Learning Repository. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24432/C55P57 (2012)

    work page doi:10.24432/c55p57 2012

  37. [37]

    UCI Machine Learning Repository

    Moro, S., Rita, P., Cortez, P.: Bank Marketing. UCI Machine Learning Repository. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24432/C5K306 (2014)

    work page doi:10.24432/c5k306 2014

  38. [38]

    Mangasarian Olvi, W., S.: Breast Cancer Wisconsin (Diagnostic)

    Wolberg William, S.N. Mangasarian Olvi, W., S.: Breast Cancer Wisconsin (Diagnostic). UCI Machine Learning Repository. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24432/C5DW2B (1993)

    work page doi:10.24432/c5dw2b 1993

  39. [39]

    UCI Machine Learning Repository

    Yeh, I.-C.: Default of Credit Card Clients. UCI Machine Learning Repository. 28 DOI: https://doi.org/10.24432/C55S3H (2009)

    work page doi:10.24432/c55s3h 2009

  40. [40]

    Grinsztajn, L., Oyallon, E., Varoquaux, G.: Why do tree-based models still out- perform deep learning on typical tabular data? Advances in neural information processing systems35, 507–520 (2022)

    2022

  41. [41]

    IEEE Dataport (2023)

    Hassan, A.: Stroke Prediction Dataset. IEEE Dataport (2023). https://doi.org/ 10.21227/mxfb-sc71 . https://dx.doi.org/10.21227/mxfb-sc71

    work page doi:10.21227/mxfb-sc71 2023

  42. [42]

    Kaggle (2020)

    Karen, M., Marzyeh, G., Meredith Lee, N., Sharada Kalanidhi, s.: WiDS Datathon 2020. Kaggle (2020). https://kaggle.com/competitions/ widsdatathon2020

    2020

  43. [43]

    note on regression and inheritance in the case of two parents

    Pearson, K.: Vii. note on regression and inheritance in the case of two parents. proceedings of the royal society of London58(347-352), 240–242 (1895)

  44. [44]

    The American Journal of Psychology15(1), 72–101 (1904) https://doi.org/10

    Spearman, C.: The proof and measurement of association between two things. The American Journal of Psychology15(1), 72–101 (1904) https://doi.org/10. 2307/1412159

    1904

  45. [45]

    IEEE transactions on information theory28(2), 129–137 (1982)

    Lloyd, S.: Least squares quantization in pcm. IEEE transactions on information theory28(2), 129–137 (1982)

    1982

  46. [46]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp

    Yoo, D., Kweon, I.S.: Learning loss for active learning. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 93–102 (2019)

    2019

  47. [47]

    Active Learning for Convolutional Neural Networks: A Core-Set Approach

    Sener, O., Savarese, S.: Active learning for convolutional neural networks: A core- set approach. arXiv preprint arXiv:1708.00489 (2017)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  48. [48]

    In: Proceedings of the 2008 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pp

    Settles, B., Craven, M.: An analysis of active learning strategies for sequence labeling tasks. In: Proceedings of the 2008 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pp. 1070–1079 (2008)

    2008

  49. [49]

    Advances in neural information processing systems30(2017)

    Lakshminarayanan, B., Pritzel, A., Blundell, C.: Simple and scalable predictive uncertainty estimation using deep ensembles. Advances in neural information processing systems30(2017)

    2017

  50. [50]

    Advances in neural information processing systems32(2019) 29 Fig

    Romano, Y., Patterson, E., Candes, E.: Conformalized quantile regression. Advances in neural information processing systems32(2019) 29 Fig. 2Learning curves of model training iterations by AL on the Bike Sharing dataset. The top figure compares baselines to un-optimized TDS and the bottom figure shows results on optimized hyper-parameters TDS. 30 Fig. 3Ri...

    2019