Decision tree-based models are widely used in machine learning due to their interpretability and strong empirical performance. However, training decision trees can be computationally expensive, particularly for large and high-dimensional datasets, largely due to the exhaustive search over candidate splits at each node. To improve computational efficiency, we propose Data-Informed Centroid Splitting (DICS), a clustering-based framework that constructs a compact and informative set of candidate splits using data-driven priors. By incorporating class-aware structure, DICS significantly reduces the split search space for classification tasks while preserving predictive performance. We further provide theoretical analysis showing that under the stated assumptions, DICS does not degrade the performance of classification trees compared to exhaustive split search. DICS can be incorporated into classification trees, random forests, and gradient-boosting models. Extensive experiments demonstrate that DICS achieves comparable accuracy while substantially reducing training time across synthetic and benchmark datasets, highlighting the benefit of integrating data-informed priors into split selection for scalable classification tree learning.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Illustrative example: (left) classification vs. clustering boundaries; (right) midpoint vs. variance-adjusted boundaries.
(N,P)
Class
Time (sec) ↓
Speedup ↑
Test Acc ↑
DT
BDTKS
CGCT
tDT/tCGCT
DT
BDTKS
CGCT
10000,1000
3
2.47 (0.03)
30.16
0.19 (0.02)
13.00
0.62 (0.00)
0.54
0.60 (0.00)
5
2.53 (0.01)
34.36
0.25 (0.02)
10.12
0.54 (0.00)
0.39
0.52 (0.00)
10
2.52 (0.00)
35.68
0.29 (0.02)
8.69
0.43 (0.00)
0.32
0.41 (0.00)
5000,7000
3
8.36 (0.10)
29.85
0.58 (0.05)
14.41
0.61 (0.01)
0.57
0.59 (0.01)
5
8.14 (0.03)
29.44
0.91 (0.04)
8.94
0.47 (0.01)
0.38
0.45 (0.00)
Table 1: Accuracy and training time (in seconds) for DT, BDTKS, and CGCT in synthetic data. The ratio tDT/tCGCT quantifies the training time improvement of CGCT relative to DT.
(N,P)
Class
Time (sec) ↓
Speedup ↑
Test Acc ↑
RF
CGRF
tRF/tCGRF
RF
CGRF
10000,1000
3
4.05 (0.13)
0.36 (0.04)
11.25
0.64 (0.00)
0.64 (0.00)
5
4.32 (0.02)
0.41 (0.03)
10.54
0.56 (0.01)
0.56 (0.00)
10
4.25 (0.04)
0.53 (0.02)
8.02
0.45 (0.01)
0.45 (0.01)
5000,7000
3
13.27 (0.45)
0.93 (0.10)
14.27
0.64 (0.00)
0.64 (0.01)
5
13.18 (0.05)
1.14 (0.05)
11.56
0.53 (0.00)
0.52 (0.00)
Table 2: Accuracy and training time (in seconds) for RF and CGRF in synthetic data. The ratio tRF/tCGRF quantifies the training time improvement of CGRF relative to RF.
(N,P)
Class
Time (sec) ↓
Speedup ↑
Test Acc ↑
XGBoost
LightGBM
FastC-GBM
ρ1
ρ2
XGBoost
LightGBM
FastC-GBM
10000,1000
3
1.62 (0.03)
1.16 (0.06)
0.32 (0.00)
5.06
3.62
0.68 (0.00)
0.68 (0.0)
0.65 (0.01)
5
2.66 (0.07)
1.81 (0.07)
0.35 (0.00)
7.60
5.17
0.59 (0.01)
0.60 (0.01)
0.59 (0.01)
10
5.03 (0.02)
3.31 (0.0)
0.51 (0.01)
9.86
6.49
0.47 (0.01)
0.46 (0.01)
0.45 (0.01)
5000,7000
3
6.62 (0.06)
3.09 (0.03)
0.24 (0.00)
27.58
12.87
0.63 (0.00)
0.63 (0.02)
0.61 (0.02)
5
11.25 (0.09)
4.96 (0.07)
0.28 (0.00)
40.18
17.71
0.51 (0.02)
0.50 (0.02)
0.50 (0.02)
Table 3: Accuracy and training time (in seconds) for XGBoost, LightGBM and FastC-GBM in synthetic data. The ratios ρ1=tXGBoost/tFastC−GBM and ρ2=tLightGBM/tFastC−GBM quantify the training time improvement of FastC-GBM relative to XGBoost and LightGBM, respectively.
Train time (s) ↓
Speedup ↑
Test Acc ↑
Dataset
DT
CGCT
BDTKS
tDT/tCGCT
DT
CGCT
BDTKS
Helena
1.30
0.12
470.25
10.83
0.28
0.26
0.16
Spambase
0.02
0.01
5.42
2.00
0.95
0.93
0.79
Santander
17.99
0.83
714.26
21.67
0.91
0.90
0.85
CIFAR-10
42.63
3.33
533.91
12.80
0.34
0.31
0.29
MNIST
3.27
0.99
124.42
3.30
0.83
0.79
0.91
Table 4: Accuracy and training time (in seconds) for DT, BDTKS, and CGCT in real datasets. The ratio tDT/tCGCT quantifies the training time improvement of CGCT relative to DT.
Train time (s) ↓
Speedup ↑
Test Acc ↑
Dataset
RF
CGRF
tRF/tCGRF
RF
CGRF
Helena
1.43 (0.12)
0.22 (0.02)
6.50
0.29 (0.00)
0.28 (0.00)
Spambase
0.09 (0.00)
0.03 (0.01)
3.00
0.95 (0.00)
0.94 (0.00)
Santander
22.04 (0.46)
3.12 (0.04)
7.06
0.90 (0.00)
0.90 (0.00)
CIFAR-10
55.96 (2.47)
4.37 (0.12)
12.80
0.40 (0.01)
0.38 (0.01)
MNIST
5.24 (0.25)
2.28 (0.02)
2.30
0.93 (0.00)
0.92 (0.00)
Table 5: Accuracy and training time (in seconds) for RF and CGRF in real datasets. The ratio tRF/tCGRF quantifies the training time improvement of CGRF relative to RF.
Train time (s) ↓
Speedup ↑
Test Acc ↑
Dataset
XGBoost
LightGBM
FastC-GBM
ρ1
ρ2
XGBoost
LightGBM
FastC-GBM
Helena
13.01 (0.14)
13.38 (0.15)
5.48 (0.26)
2.37
2.44
0.35 (0.00)
0.23 (0.00)
0.32 (0.00)
Spambase
0.20 (0.00)
0.16 (0.01)
0.06 (0.00)
3.34
2.67
0.95 (0.00)
0.95 (0.00)
0.94 (0.00)
Santander
0.91 (0.03)
1.09 (0.02)
1.12 (0.01)
0.81
0.97
0.90 (0.00)
0.90 (0.00)
0.90 (0.00)
CIFAR-10
52.50 (0.86)
26.57 (0.29)
2.80 (0.04)
18.75
9.49
0.45 (0.00)
0.48 (0.00)
0.46 (0.00)
MNIST
29.42 (0.07)
4.33 (0.01)
2.55 (0.04)
11.54
1.70
0.94 (0.00)
0.95 (0.00)
0.95 (0.00)
Table 6: Accuracy and training time (in seconds) for XGBoost, LightGBM and FastC-GBM in real datasets. The ratios ρ1=tXGBoost/tFastC−GBM and ρ2=tLightGBM/tFastC−GBM quantify the training time improvement of FastC-GBM relative to XGBoost and LightGBM, respectively.
Appendix figures & tables7 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 2: Parameter sensitivity of CGCT on CIFAR-10 with respect to (a) the maximum number of cluster pairs ( m ), (b) the maximum number of feature-threshold pairs ( k ), (c) the maximum tree depth ( D ), and (d) the mini-batch size ( b ). Each point represents the mean test accuracy over 50 runs, and error bars denote ±3 standard deviations.
Mean Local Gain gˉd
Weighted Gain Gd(w)
Cumulative Gain Cd
Rd (%)
Depth
DT
CGCT
DT
CGCT
DT
CGCT
1
0.019
0.019
0.019
0.019
0.019
0.019
100.00
2
0.013
0.012
0.012
0.012
0.031
0.031
99.46
3
0.015
0.014
0.013
0.013
0.044
0.043
98.04
4
0.015
0.015
0.013
0.013
0.057
0.057
99.37
5
0.018
0.017
0.013
0.013
0.070
0.070
99.40
Appendix
Table 7: Depth-wise impurity reduction of independently grown exhaustive DT and CGCT on CIFAR-10 with maximum depth D=8 , where Depth 1 denotes the root level. For depth d , gˉd=∣Id∣−1∑j∈Idgj is the mean local Gini gain, Gd(w)=∑j∈Id(nj/N)gj is the sample-weighted impurity reduction, Cd=∑r=1dGr(w) is the cumulative weighted gain, and Rd=CdCGCT/CdDT is the cumulative gain retained by CGCT relative to exhaustive DT.
N
Gain Gap ΔG
NΔG
1,000
0.0039
0.1227
2,000
0.0025
0.1100
5,000
0.0017
0.1183
10,000
0.0012
0.1242
20,000
0.0011
0.1492
Appendix
Table 8: Split-level gain gap between DICS and exhaustive DT across increasing sample sizes. Results are averaged over 40 independent runs.
(N,P)
Class
Time (sec) ↓
Speedup ↑
ACC ↑
DT
BDTKS
CGCT
tDT/tCGCT
DT
BDTKS
CGCT
10000,1000
3
2.59 (0.02)
31.84
0.18 (0.02)
14.39
0.67 (0.00)
0.53
0.65 (0.00)
5
2.49 (0.00)
35.54
0.27 (0.02)
9.22
0.50 (0.00)
0.31
0.49 (0.00)
10
2.64 (0.00)
38.21
0.30 (0.02)
8.80
0.46 (0.00)
0.30
0.44 (0.01)
5000,7000
3
8.15 (0.09)
29.65
0.63 (0.03)
12.94
0.69 (0.00)
0.62
0.68 (0.01)
5
8.56 (0.04)
29.83
0.92 (0.05)
9.30
0.39 (0.00)
0.30
0.37 (0.01)
Appendix
Table 9: Accuracy and training time (in seconds) for DT, BDTKS, and CGCT in real datasets. The ratio tDT/tCGCT quantifies the training time improvement of CGCT relative to DT. Here ρ=0 .
(N,P)
Class
Time (sec) ↓
Speedup ↑
ACC ↑
RF
CGRF
tRF/tCGRF
RF
CGRF
10000,1000
3
4.16 (0.04)
0.34 (0.02)
12.23
0.70 (0.00)
0.70 (0.00)
5
4.13 (0.05)
0.39 (0.00)
10.59
0.54 (0.00)
0.54 (0.01)
10
4.54 (0.00)
0.50 (0.02)
9.08
0.47 (0.00)
0.47 (0.00)
5000,7000
3
13.67 (0.46)
0.86 (0.07)
15.89
0.73 (0.00)
0.73 (0.01)
5
14.13 (0.15)
1.22 (0.03)
11.58
0.44 (0.01)
0.44 (0.00)
Appendix
Table 10: Accuracy and training time (in seconds) for RF and CGRF in synthetic data. The ratio tRF/tCGRF quantifies the training time improvement of CGRF relative to RF. Here ρ=0 .
(N,P)
Class
Time (sec) ↓
Speedup ↑
ACC ↑
XGBoost
LightGBM
CGXGB
ρ1
ρ1
XGBoost
LightGBM
CGXGB
10000,1000
3
1.43 (0.01)
0.97 (0.00)
0.30 (0.01)
4.77
3.23
0.71 (0.01)
0.71 (0.01)
0.70 (0.01)
5
2.36 (0.00)
1.59 (0.00)
0.37 (0.00)
6.38
4.30
0.54 (0.00)
0.55 (0.01)
0.55 (0.01)
10
4.50 (0.01)
2.93 (0.01)
0.44 (0.01)
10.23
6.66
0.48 (0.01)
0.47 (0.02)
0.45 (0.01)
5000,7000
3
6.73 (0.05)
3.13 (0.06)
0.24 (0.01)
28.04
13.04
0.75 (0.02)
0.75 (0.02)
0.74 (0.01)
5
10.81 (0.23)
4.80 (0.15)
0.29 (0.00)
37.28
16.55
0.41 (0.02)
0.41 (0.02)
0.38 (0.01)
Appendix
Table 11: Accuracy and training time (in seconds) for XGBoost, LightGBM and FastC-GBM in synthetic data. The ratios ρ1=tXGBoost/tFastC−GBM and ρ2=tLightGBM/tFastC−GBM quantify the training time improvement of FastC-GBM relative to XGBoost and LightGBM, respectively. Here ρ=0 .
Dataset
N
P
K
Helena
65,196
27
100
Spambase
4,601
57
2
Santander
200,000
200
2
CIFAR-10
60,000
3,072
10
MNIST
70,000
784
10
Fashion-MNIST
70,000
784
10
Appendix
Table 12: Summary of datasets used in the experiments, including sample size ( N ), number of features ( P ), and number of classes ( K ).
Optimal decision trees (ODTs) are compact, interpretable machine learning models that globally optimize a given objective, but their scalability remains challenging. While recent work has proposed a variety of search strategies to improve scalability, the precise contribution of each strategy remains unclear. To address this gap, we introduce a general algorithmic framework for ODTs that instantiates previously used search strategies and enables the definition of new ones. This provides a common lens through which to understand and compare different strategies, which we use to empirically investigate the effect of 18 search strategies. Compared to the state of the art, the best strategy in our evaluation achieves significantly better anytime performance for classification, and improves runtime by more than an order of magnitude for regression.
Jacobus G. M. van der Linden, Mim van den Bos, Emir Demirović
Dynamic programming for optimal classification trees becomes computationally expensive as the numbers of features and training samples increase. We develop a joint feature- and sample-space reduction framework based on STreeD. Weighted STreeD merges duplicate records created after projection onto a fixed candidate set into weighted representatives. This reduces sample-dependent computation without changing the fixed-candidate optimization problem. Adaptive STreeD repeatedly refines a bounded candidate set, retains features used by the incumbent tree, rebuilds the weighted representation, and solves the resulting reduced problems. Each certified Weighted STreeD solution is optimal for its current candidate set, while the outer feature search remains heuristic over the full feature space. Experiments on five data sets show that Weighted STreeD achieves speedups of up to 121.41 times over standard STreeD. Adaptive STreeD reduces runtime in matched comparisons at depths 2 to 4 and continues to return feasible trees at greater depths where full-feature methods are limited by time or memory. Under the same computational budget, its predictive performance remains comparable to the evaluated optimal classification tree baselines and is higher in some comparisons. These results show how joint feature- and sample-space reduction can scale dynamic-programming-based optimal-tree learning to more demanding instances.
Jiancheng Tu, Wenqi Fan
Department of Computing, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University · Department of Management and Marketing, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University
The discretization of continuous numerical attributes remains a persistent computational bottleneck in the induction of decision trees, particularly as dataset dimensions scale. Building upon the recently proposed MSD-Splitting technique -- which bins continuous data using the empirical mean and standard deviation to dramatically improve the efficiency and accuracy of the C4.5 algorithm -- we introduce Adaptive MSD-Splitting (AMSD). While standard MSD-Splitting is highly effective for approximately symmetric distributions, its rigid adherence to fixed one-standard-deviation cutoffs can lead to catastrophic information loss in highly skewed data, a common artifact in real-world biomedical and financial datasets. AMSD addresses this by dynamically adjusting the standard deviation multiplier based on feature skewness, narrowing intervals in dense regions to preserve discriminative resolution. Furthermore, we integrate AMSD into ensemble methods, specifically presenting the Random Forest-AMSD (RF-AMSD) framework. Empirical evaluations on the Census Income, Heart Disease, Breast Cancer, and Forest Covertype datasets demonstrate that AMSD yields a 2-4% accuracy improvement over standard MSD-Splitting, while maintaining near-identical O(N) time complexity reductions compared to the O(N log N) exhaustive search. Our Random Forest extension achieves state-of-the-art accuracy at a fraction of standard computational costs, confirming the viability of adaptive statistical binning in large-scale ensemble learning architectures.