{"passport":{"unfragile":{"@version":"1.0","version":"2026-05","artifact":{"id":"awesome-induction-of-decision-trees-cart","slug":"induction-of-decision-trees-cart","name":"Induction of decision trees (CART)","type":"product","url":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00116251","page_url":"https://unfragile.ai/induction-of-decision-trees-cart","categories":["productivity"],"tags":[],"pricing":{"model":"unknown","free":false,"starting_price":null},"status":"inactive","verified":false},"capabilities":[{"id":"awesome-induction-of-decision-trees-cart__cap_0","uri":"capability://planning.reasoning.binary.recursive.partitioning.for.classification.trees","name":"binary recursive partitioning for classification trees","description":"Implements the CART (Classification and Regression Trees) algorithm using binary splitting at each node to recursively partition feature space. The algorithm selects split points by evaluating all possible thresholds for each feature, computing impurity reduction (Gini index for classification) to greedily choose the best split that minimizes child node impurity. This greedy top-down approach builds a complete tree structure that can be post-pruned to prevent overfitting.","intents":["build interpretable classification models from tabular data without manual feature engineering","understand which features drive predictions through explicit split rules and feature importance rankings","handle mixed feature types (continuous and categorical) in a single unified tree structure","generate decision rules that can be directly implemented in production systems or compliance documentation"],"best_for":["data scientists building interpretable models for regulated industries (finance, healthcare)","teams needing human-readable decision logic for audit trails and explainability","practitioners working with small-to-medium tabular datasets (< 1M rows)"],"limitations":["greedy splitting is locally optimal, not globally optimal — may miss better splits that require multiple sequential decisions","prone to overfitting on noisy data without aggressive pruning; requires careful hyperparameter tuning (min_samples_leaf, max_depth)","unstable with small sample sizes — minor data perturbations can produce substantially different tree structures","categorical features with many levels require discretization or one-hot encoding, increasing dimensionality","no native support for missing values — requires imputation or surrogate splits (not always implemented)"],"requires":["tabular dataset with labeled target variable (classification or regression)","numerical or categorical features; continuous features must be sortable","sufficient samples per leaf node (typically >= 5-10) to avoid sparse terminal nodes"],"input_types":["structured tabular data (CSV, DataFrame, matrix format)","numerical features (float, int)","categorical features (string, ordinal)"],"output_types":["tree structure (nodes with split conditions and leaf predictions)","feature importance scores (Gini-based or impurity reduction)","decision rules (if-then-else logic extractable from tree paths)"],"categories":["planning-reasoning","machine-learning-classification"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"awesome-induction-of-decision-trees-cart__cap_1","uri":"capability://planning.reasoning.cost.complexity.pruning.for.overfitting.prevention","name":"cost-complexity pruning for overfitting prevention","description":"Implements post-hoc pruning using a cost-complexity parameter (alpha) that penalizes tree size during the pruning phase. The algorithm generates a sequence of nested subtrees by incrementally removing splits that provide the least impurity reduction per added complexity, then selects the optimal tree via cross-validation. This two-phase approach (grow-then-prune) decouples tree construction from regularization, allowing the full tree to be explored before deciding which splits to retain.","intents":["prevent overfitting by removing splits that improve training accuracy but hurt generalization","automatically select tree depth and complexity without manual hyperparameter tuning","generate a sequence of models at different complexity levels for model selection via cross-validation","balance interpretability (simpler trees) with predictive accuracy"],"best_for":["practitioners building production models where overfitting is a primary concern","scenarios requiring model simplicity for compliance, debugging, or deployment constraints","teams with limited computational resources (pruning is cheaper than retraining multiple trees)"],"limitations":["cross-validation for pruning adds computational overhead (typically 5-10x training time for 5-fold CV)","pruning sequence is deterministic but sensitive to the cost-complexity parameter range — poor range selection can miss optimal trees","does not address bias in the initial greedy tree construction — only removes splits, cannot restructure","assumes training and test data are drawn from same distribution; distribution shift can make pruning decisions suboptimal"],"requires":["fully grown decision tree (unpruned)","validation dataset or cross-validation splits for selecting optimal complexity parameter","computational budget for evaluating multiple pruned subtrees"],"input_types":["trained tree structure with node impurity and sample counts"],"output_types":["pruned tree at selected complexity level","sequence of pruned subtrees (for analysis)","optimal alpha (cost-complexity) parameter"],"categories":["planning-reasoning","machine-learning-regularization"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"awesome-induction-of-decision-trees-cart__cap_2","uri":"capability://data.processing.analysis.surrogate.split.handling.for.missing.values","name":"surrogate split handling for missing values","description":"Implements a mechanism to handle missing feature values by learning surrogate splits — alternative split conditions that approximate the primary split's behavior when the primary feature is unavailable. During tree construction, for each split, the algorithm identifies the feature and threshold that best mimics the primary split's left/right assignment, storing this as a backup. At prediction time, if a sample has a missing value for the primary feature, the surrogate split is used to route the sample down the tree, enabling graceful degradation without requiring explicit imputation.","intents":["handle datasets with missing values without preprocessing or imputation, preserving data integrity","make predictions on new samples with missing features by falling back to learned surrogate rules","understand which features are most predictive when primary features are unavailable","avoid information loss from imputation methods that may introduce bias"],"best_for":["real-world datasets with naturally occurring missing data (medical records, sensor data, surveys)","production systems where missing values are common and imputation is unreliable","domains where understanding feature relationships (via surrogates) provides business insight"],"limitations":["surrogate splits are learned greedily and may not perfectly replicate primary split behavior — introduces small prediction variance","requires storing multiple split candidates per node, increasing memory footprint by ~20-30% vs. simple trees","surrogate learning assumes missing values are missing at random (MCAR); systematic missingness patterns can degrade surrogate quality","not all CART implementations include surrogate splits — requires specific algorithm variant"],"requires":["training data with missing values (represented as NaN, None, or null)","CART implementation with explicit surrogate split support"],"input_types":["tabular data with missing values in any feature column"],"output_types":["tree with primary and surrogate splits stored at each node","predictions for samples with missing values"],"categories":["data-processing-analysis","machine-learning-preprocessing"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"awesome-induction-of-decision-trees-cart__cap_3","uri":"capability://planning.reasoning.feature.importance.ranking.via.impurity.reduction","name":"feature importance ranking via impurity reduction","description":"Computes feature importance scores by aggregating the impurity reduction (Gini decrease or variance reduction) contributed by each feature across all splits in the tree. For each feature, the algorithm sums the weighted impurity reductions at every node where that feature is used as the primary or surrogate split, normalizing by total impurity reduction to produce relative importance scores. This approach directly reflects how much each feature contributes to reducing prediction error in the learned tree structure.","intents":["identify which features are most predictive and drive the model's decisions","rank features for feature selection — remove low-importance features to simplify models","explain model predictions to stakeholders by showing which features matter most","detect data quality issues (e.g., unexpected features with high importance may indicate data leakage)"],"best_for":["exploratory data analysis to understand feature relationships in tabular data","feature engineering workflows where importance guides feature selection","model interpretation and stakeholder communication in regulated domains"],"limitations":["importance is tree-specific — reflects only the splits chosen by the greedy algorithm, not true feature predictiveness","biased toward high-cardinality features (continuous variables with many unique values) because they offer more split opportunities","does not account for feature correlations — correlated features may have artificially low importance if one is selected first","importance scores are not directly comparable across different tree structures or datasets","does not distinguish between features used in primary splits vs. surrogate splits — both contribute equally"],"requires":["trained decision tree with recorded impurity values at each node"],"input_types":["tree structure with node-level impurity reduction values"],"output_types":["feature importance scores (normalized 0-1 or percentage)","feature ranking (ordered list)"],"categories":["planning-reasoning","machine-learning-interpretability"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"awesome-induction-of-decision-trees-cart__cap_4","uri":"capability://planning.reasoning.regression.tree.construction.with.variance.reduction","name":"regression tree construction with variance reduction","description":"Extends the CART algorithm to regression tasks by replacing Gini impurity with variance (sum of squared deviations from mean) as the splitting criterion. At each node, the algorithm evaluates all possible splits for each feature, selecting the split that minimizes the weighted sum of variances in child nodes. Terminal nodes predict the mean target value of training samples in that leaf, producing piecewise constant predictions across the feature space.","intents":["build interpretable regression models for continuous target prediction without assuming linear relationships","capture non-linear patterns and interactions through recursive partitioning","generate decision rules that directly map feature ranges to predicted values","handle mixed feature types (continuous and categorical) in a single unified regression framework"],"best_for":["regression tasks where interpretability is critical (e.g., pricing models, resource allocation)","datasets with non-linear relationships that violate linear regression assumptions","practitioners needing fast, stable predictions without hyperparameter tuning"],"limitations":["piecewise constant predictions can be discontinuous at tree boundaries — may produce unrealistic jumps","variance reduction criterion is sensitive to outliers (squared deviations amplify extreme values)","tree depth grows quickly with continuous targets — requires aggressive pruning to avoid overfitting","predictions are limited to the range of training data — no extrapolation beyond observed values","assumes homoscedasticity (constant variance across feature space); heteroscedastic data may require transformation"],"requires":["tabular dataset with continuous numerical target variable","numerical or categorical features"],"input_types":["structured tabular data with continuous target","numerical and categorical features"],"output_types":["regression tree structure with leaf predictions (mean values)","continuous predictions for new samples","feature importance scores"],"categories":["planning-reasoning","machine-learning-regression"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0}],"trust":{"score":21,"verified":false,"data_access_risk":"low","permissions":["tabular dataset with labeled target variable (classification or regression)","numerical or categorical features; continuous features must be sortable","sufficient samples per leaf node (typically >= 5-10) to avoid sparse terminal nodes","fully grown decision tree (unpruned)","validation dataset or cross-validation splits for selecting optimal complexity parameter","computational budget for evaluating multiple pruned subtrees","training data with missing values (represented as NaN, None, or null)","CART implementation with explicit surrogate split support","trained decision tree with recorded impurity values at each node","tabular dataset with continuous numerical target variable"],"failure_modes":["greedy splitting is locally optimal, not globally optimal — may miss better splits that require multiple sequential decisions","prone to overfitting on noisy data without aggressive pruning; requires careful hyperparameter tuning (min_samples_leaf, max_depth)","unstable with small sample sizes — minor data perturbations can produce substantially different tree structures","categorical features with many levels require discretization or one-hot encoding, increasing dimensionality","no native support for missing values — requires imputation or surrogate splits (not always implemented)","cross-validation for pruning adds computational overhead (typically 5-10x training time for 5-fold CV)","pruning sequence is deterministic but sensitive to the cost-complexity parameter range — poor range selection can miss optimal trees","does not address bias in the initial greedy tree construction — only removes splits, cannot restructure","assumes training and test data are drawn from same distribution; distribution shift can make pruning decisions suboptimal","surrogate splits are learned greedily and may not perfectly replicate primary split behavior — introduces small prediction variance","builder identity is not verified yet","no observed match outcomes yet"],"rank_breakdown":{"adoption":0.05,"quality":0.25,"ecosystem":0.25,"match_graph":0.25,"freshness":0.5,"weights":{"adoption":0.25,"quality":0.25,"ecosystem":0.1,"match_graph":0.35,"freshness":0.05}},"observed_outcomes":{"matches":0,"success_rate":0,"avg_confidence":0,"top_intents":[],"last_matched_at":null},"maintenance":{"status":"inactive","updated_at":"2026-06-17T09:51:03.042Z","last_scraped_at":"2026-05-03T14:00:27.894Z","last_commit":null},"community":{"stars":null,"forks":null,"weekly_downloads":null,"model_downloads":null,"model_likes":null}},"distribution":{"claim_url":"https://unfragile.ai/submit?claim=induction-of-decision-trees-cart","compare_url":"https://unfragile.ai/compare?artifact=induction-of-decision-trees-cart"}},"signature":"pm6+hG8VKXTC0RruU/maIumWs18TuSuvnY9ngz4bKo79s3d7CwMvvtWam89wGDJbGwm692erGH31PWc1/CadAw==","signedAt":"2026-06-19T11:14:55.978Z","signedBy":"unfragile.ai","version":1},"_links":{"self":"https://unfragile.ai/api/v1/passport/induction-of-decision-trees-cart","artifact":"https://unfragile.ai/induction-of-decision-trees-cart","verify":"https://unfragile.ai/api/v1/verify?slug=induction-of-decision-trees-cart","publicKey":"https://unfragile.ai/api/v1/trust-passport-public-key","spec":"https://unfragile.ai/trust","schema":"https://unfragile.ai/schema.json","docs":"https://unfragile.ai/docs"}}