Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 52 references

RETENTION: Resource-Efficient Tree-Based Ensemble Model Acceleration with Content-Addressable Memory

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A pruning-and-mapping framework cuts CAM memory for tree ensembles up to 207x while keeping accuracy loss under 3%.

desk verdict A useful engineering paper on pruning and memory-mapping tree ensembles to TCAM, with capacity claims that hold on paper but need hardware-aware validation before the headline factors are taken at face value. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.05994 v2 pith:JE7KDXKZ submitted 2025-06-06 cs.LG cs.ARcs.ET

Yi-Chun Liao , Chieh-Lin Tsai , Yuan-Hao Chang , Camélia Slimani , Jalil Boukhobza , Tei-Wei Kuo This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LGcs.ARcs.ET
keywords content-addressablememoryTCAMtree-basedensemblerandomforestmodelpruningdataplacementin-memorycomputingresourceefficiency
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

Tree-based ensembles such as random forests remain the go-to models for tabular data, but accelerating them with content-addressable memory (CAM) has been held back by the enormous, mostly redundant storage needed to encode every root-to-leaf path as a row. This paper argues that the waste is not inherent: a combination of ensemble-level pruning and a smarter path-to-CAM placement can shrink the required CAM capacity by a large factor while keeping accuracy loss within a user-set tolerance. On five datasets, the mapping scheme alone cut capacity 1.46x to 21.30x, and the full framework achieved 4.35x to 207.12x reduction with less than 3% accuracy loss. The practical stakes are that resource-constrained devices could run large tree ensembles on non-volatile TCAM accelerators that previously would not have fit.

What carries the argument

The two load-bearing mechanisms are the pruning criterion and the placement heuristics. Purity threshold pruning records each node's majority class and purity during training, then after training selects the minimum purity threshold that keeps out-of-bag accuracy within tolerance and converts nodes above it into leaves; because bagged trees vote collectively, a minority class dropped in one tree can still be recovered by others. ODR sorts conditions by descending frequency and places paths containing rare conditions first, packing don't-care cells into bottom-right TCAMs that are then removed whole; SPC treats each TCAM as a fixed-size cluster and greedily adds the path that maximizes shared conditions and minimizes new unique conditions. Both keep paths in fixed rows so partial match results never need CPU-side merging, which is what distinguishes them from prior row-elimination schemes.

What would settle it

Build or simulate the mapped TCAM layout from Table III at hardware level and check two things: every input that matches a removed all-don't-care block also matches some kept block, so inference results are unchanged, and deleting those blocks actually removes rows without extra control logic. If a real nvTCAM prototype shows that fully-don't-care blocks cannot be excised without breaking parallel search or requiring additional bookkeeping, the central capacity-reduction numbers would shrink.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that the CAM capacity needed for tree-based model inference can be reduced by orders of magnitude without materially changing predictions, by attacking redundancy at two levels. First, a new "purity threshold pruning" method prunes nodes whose majority-class purity is high enough that the ensemble's out-of-bag accuracy stays within a user-specified tolerance, shrinking both the number of paths and the number of unique conditions. Second, a tree mapping scheme removes the don't-care cells that dominate naive mappings: occurrence-based double reordering (ODR) sorts conditions and paths so that entire all-don't-care TCAM blocks can be dropped with no extra merging cost, while similarity-based path clustering (SPC) greedily groups paths that share conditions so each TCAM holds more real information. The result, as reported, is 4.35x to 207.12x less CAM capacity on five datasets with less than 3% accuracy loss.

Load-bearing premise

The reported capacity reductions assume that TCAM blocks consisting entirely of don't-care cells can simply be dropped without changing match results or adding hardware overhead, and this fixed-row, multi-TCAM matching model has not been validated on real TCAM hardware.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Implementing only the tree mapping scheme, without pruning, reduces CAM capacity by 1.46x to 21.30x across the five datasets.
  • With the full framework at 3% tolerance, capacity drops 4.35x to 207.12x while testing accuracy loss stays under 3%.
  • Purity threshold pruning alone, under naive mapping, cuts capacity 21.04% to 99.93% (1.27x to 1357.12x) depending on dataset and tolerance.
  • SPC consistently outperforms feature-reordering with row elimination and naive independent mapping, and on CreditApproval it reaches nearly the theoretical minimum number of TCAMs.
  • The same RETENTION pipeline transfers to ACAM by treating columns as features instead of conditions, though gains shrink for small feature counts.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension is to apply the same out-of-bag-guided purity threshold to other bagged structures, such as totally random trees or bagged deep ensembles, where the collective-voting argument should hold similarly.
  • If the free-removal assumption for all-don't-care TCAM blocks survives hardware validation, the ODR and SPC placement logic becomes a general technique for any sparse row-wise CAM workload, not just decision trees.
  • The tolerance parameter gives edge deployers a direct accuracy-versus-memory dial; one could imagine compiling the same model at multiple tolerances and switching based on remaining battery or memory budget.
  • Because the results are simulation-based, the headline multipliers are upper bounds until a real nvTCAM prototype confirms that removing whole don't-care blocks preserves search semantics and yields the assumed area and energy savings.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. RETENTION proposes an end-to-end framework to reduce the TCAM capacity required for accelerating tree-based ensemble inference. It combines (i) purity threshold pruning, a node-to-leaf pruning scheme for bagging-based models that uses OOB accuracy under a user-specified tolerance, and (ii) a tree mapping scheme with two data placement strategies: ODR, an energy-oriented reordering of conditions and paths designed to create fully-don't-care SxS blocks that can be dropped, and SPC, a greedy path clustering heuristic that packs similar paths into single TCAMs. The paper evaluates on Random Forest and XGBoost over five UCI datasets, using a custom tabular simulation to count required TCAMs; it reports mapping-only reductions of 1.46x to 21.30x and full-framework reductions of 4.35x to 207.12x at 3% tolerance, with measured test accuracy losses below 3% in the reported cases.

Significance. If the underlying hardware assumptions hold, this is a useful contribution to CAM-based tree ensemble acceleration. The pruning criterion is specifically motivated by bagging rather than borrowed from boosting, the OOB-tolerance mechanism gives a principled accuracy-complexity tradeoff, and the two mapping strategies address memory redundancy from complementary angles. The capacity numbers are direct arithmetic consequences of the stated mapping rules rather than fitted outcomes, and the reported accuracy losses are measured on held-out test data, so the central evaluation is not circular. The significance is conditional, however: the headline reductions rely on a fixed-row, multi-TCAM execution model for which the paper supplies no hardware validation or overhead model, and the simulation-only evaluation is not accompanied by code or a reproducibility artifact. These gaps are addressable, but they are load-bearing for the main quantitative claims.

major comments (3)
  1. [§III-D3, §IV-A4, Table III] The central capacity-reduction claim depends on deleting every SxS block whose cells are all don't-care and treating that deletion as free and semantically neutral. This is valid only under a fixed-row, multi-TCAM matching model in which row-wise match vectors of all remaining TCAMs are ANDed before a path is declared matched. The paper asserts this model and claims that removing all-X TCAMs has no computational overhead, but it does not specify how the row-wise AND is implemented, how arbitration is performed when several rows match, or how leaf labels are aggregated. No RTL, FPGA prototype, or cycle-accurate TCAM-bank simulation is provided. If a real TCAM returns only a priority-encoded match index per block, removing an all-X block can change which leaf is reported. Because Table III and the headline 4.35x to 207.12x reductions, as well as the energy/latency discussion in §IV-G, all inherit this assumption, the issue is load-bearing and should be resolved either by validating the model on hardware or cycle-accurate simulation or by explicitly accounting for the matching/AND overhead in the reported costs.
  2. [§III-D4, §IV-D] SPC is described as eliminating the computational overhead of merging partial match results because each cluster is confined to a single TCAM. That is true for reconstructing a single path, but once paths from many trees are clustered across multiple TCAMs, the final ensemble output still requires combining per-row match information and leaf values across clusters. The paper does not specify this output arbitration or its cost; the runtime accounting in §IV-G counts only query packing and TCAM search. As a result, the reported overhead of SPC relative to unified mapping is incomplete, and the claim that SPC is more efficient in both energy and latency needs a more detailed treatment of post-search aggregation.
  3. [§IV-A2, §IV-C, Table III] The Random Forest results are reported as single runs with no random seed, no variance, and no absolute baseline test accuracy. Because forest capacity and accuracy depend on bootstrap and split randomness, the claimed bounds (for example, 4.35x to 207.12x at 3% tolerance, and the statement in §IV-C that testing accuracy loss is usually below the predefined tolerance) cannot be assessed for stability. The authors should report means and standard deviations over multiple seeds and give the baseline unpruned test accuracy so that the reported accuracy-loss percentages are interpretable.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract, §IV-B] The phrase "with less than 3% accuracy loss" is tied to the authors having set tolerance to 3%; the claim should be phrased as "with tolerance set to 3%, measured test accuracy loss stayed below 3%," since the bound is chosen, not discovered.
  2. [§III-B] The sentence "purity threshold pruning ensures that each leaf node maintains sufficient class purity to guarantee the desired level of accuracy" is stronger than the OOB-based selection procedure supports; a purity threshold at individual leaves does not by itself guarantee ensemble accuracy. Please soften the wording.
  3. [Algorithm 1, Algorithm 2] The pseudocode omits tie-breaking rules and does not define calc_similarity or find_best_candidate precisely; adding these definitions would materially improve reproducibility.
  4. [Table II] In the formulas for naive unified and naive independent mapping, the #paths and #unique conditions should be explicitly identified as per-tree quantities in the independent case; the current notation can be misread as global counts.
  5. [§IV-G] There is a typo in the paragraph before Experiment 6: "RENTENTION's influence" should read "RETENTION's influence."
  6. [§IV-A4] Since the evaluation is simulation-only and the custom simulator is not released, the paper should provide code or a detailed artifact description so that the TCAM counts can be independently reproduced.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No derivation step reduces to its inputs; capacity and accuracy results come from stated algorithms and held-out measurements.

full rationale

RETENTION's two headline results are (1) a capacity reduction from pruning plus mapping and (2) an accuracy loss bounded by a user-set tolerance. Neither is circular. The purity-threshold pruning algorithm searches a minimum node-purity threshold using out-of-bag accuracy within the user-specified tolerance, but the reported accuracy loss is measured on a held-out testing set (Section IV-A2, Table III), not defined as the tolerance itself. The tolerance is an input constraint, not a fitted parameter relabeled as a prediction. The capacity reductions are deterministic counts of TCAMs after applying the stated reordering/clustering algorithms to stored root-to-leaf paths (Section IV-A4), so they follow from the algorithms rather than from the metric. Self-citations such as [26] are related-work references and are not load-bearing for the central derivation. The main validation concern is architectural: removing all-X TCAM blocks under the fixed-row multi-TCAM matching model in Section III-D3 is plausible but not validated on real TCAM hardware. That is a correctness/robustness risk, not a circularity, because none of the paper's equations or claims are equivalent to their own inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The framework introduces no new physical entities. It relies on a user-specified accuracy tolerance, an assumed TCAM size, and hardware-validity assumptions about all-X block removal and OOB estimation. The central reductions are computed by simulation, not by fitting to target outcomes.

free parameters (2)
  • Tolerance for OOB accuracy loss = 1%, 3%, 5% (headline result uses 3%)
    User-specified constraint controlling pruning aggressiveness; the reported '<3% accuracy loss' depends on choosing this value.
  • TCAM size S = 64 (default); 128 and 256 in experiments
    Hardware array dimension assumed in simulation; capacity counts and reductions depend on it.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption A fully don't-care SxS block in the mapped TCAM grid can be removed without changing inference results or adding hardware overhead.
    The ODR capacity savings rely on dropping all-X blocks; this is plausible but not validated on real TCAM hardware (Section III-D3).
  • domain assumption Out-of-bag accuracy is a reliable proxy for test accuracy when selecting the purity threshold.
    The pruning algorithm trusts OOB estimates; for small datasets like CreditApproval (690 samples) this may be noisy (Section IV-A2).
  • domain assumption Bagging models tolerate node-level post-pruning because diversity across trees compensates for individual tree errors.
    This is the stated rationale for purity threshold pruning, but only empirical evidence, not a proof, is given (Section III-B).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of RETENTION: Resource-Efficient Tree-Based Ensemble Model Acceleration with Content-Addressable Memory." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JE7KDXKZ

@misc{pith2026250605994,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: RETENTION: Resource-Efficient Tree-Based Ensemble Model Acceleration with Content-Addressable Memory},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JE7KDXKZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.05994}
}
abstract

Although deep learning has demonstrated remarkable capability in learning from unstructured data, modern tree-based ensemble models remain superior in extracting relevant information and learning from structured datasets. While several efforts have been made to accelerate tree-based models, the inherent characteristics of the models pose significant challenges for conventional accelerators. Recent research leveraging content-addressable memory (CAM) offers a promising solution for accelerating tree-based models, yet existing designs suffer from excessive memory consumption and low utilization. This work addresses these challenges by introducing RETENTION, an end-to-end framework that significantly reduces CAM capacity requirement for tree-based model inference. We propose an iterative pruning algorithm with a novel pruning criterion tailored for bagging-based models (e.g., Random Forest), which minimizes model complexity while ensuring controlled accuracy degradation. Additionally, we present a tree mapping scheme that incorporates two innovative data placement strategies to alleviate the memory redundancy caused by the widespread use of don't care states in CAM. Experimental results show that implementing the tree mapping scheme alone reduces CAM capacity requirement by $1.46\times$ to $21.30 \times$, while the full RETENTION framework achieves $4.35\times$ to $207.12\times$ reduction with less than 3\% accuracy loss. These results demonstrate that RETENTION is highly effective in minimizing CAM resource demand, providing a resource-efficient direction for tree-based model acceleration.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.05994 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Visualization of decision tree inference acceleration with TCAM and ACAM. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overview of RETENTION. Input Dataset Ensemble Training with Purity Saved Purity Threshold Pruning Final Model Tolerance% Minimum Threshold Search Assume current purity threshold is 75% 51% 68% Class1 Class2 70% Class 78% 3 Class2 Class3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Visualization of the proposed data placement strategies. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Overall performance of RETENTION. works, with the reduced number of TCAMs as our evaluation metric. Therefore, higher values represent better performance. 2) Model Settings: Two ensemble model types are selected for case study: Random Forest, representing bagging-based…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Effectiveness of purity threshold pruning. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Comparison of different data placement strategies (XGB: XGBoost, RF: Random Forest). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Impact of number of trees on the performance of data placement strategies. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Impact of TCAM sizes on the performance of data placement strategies. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Tabular data: Deep learning is not all you need,

    R. Shwartz-Ziv and A. Armon, “Tabular data: Deep learning is not all you need,”Inf. Fusion, vol. 81, no. C, p. 84–90, May 2022. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.inffus.2021.11.011

    doi:10.1016/j.inffus.2021.11.011 2022

  2. [2]

    Why do tree-based models still outperform deep learning on typical tabular data?

    L. Grinsztajn, E. Oyallon, and G. Varoquaux, “Why do tree-based models still outperform deep learning on typical tabular data?” in Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, ser. NIPS ’22. Red Hook, NY , USA: Curran Associates Inc., 2022

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    From local explanations to global understanding with explainable ai for trees,

    S. M. Lundberg, G. Erion, H. Chen, A. DeGrave, J. M. Prutkin, B. Nair, R. Katz, J. Himmelfarb, N. Bansal, and S.-I. Lee, “From local explanations to global understanding with explainable ai for trees,” Nature Machine Intelligence, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 56–67, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-019-0138-9

    doi:10.1038/s42256-019-0138-9 2020

  4. [4]

    Explainable artificial intelligence (xai),

    DARPA, “Explainable artificial intelligence (xai),” https://www.darpa. mil/research/programs/explainable-artificial-intelligence, 2017

    work page 2017

  5. [5]

    Large language models for scientific discovery in molecular property prediction,

    Y . Zheng, H. Y . Koh, J. Ju, A. T. N. Nguyen, L. T. May, G. I. Webb, and S. Pan, “Large language models for scientific discovery in molecular property prediction,”Nature Machine Intelligence, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-025-00994-z

    doi:10.1038/s42256-025-00994-z 2025

  6. [6]

    A supervised machine learning algorithm for detecting and predicting fraud in credit card transactions,

    J. K. Afriyie, K. Tawiah, W. A. Pels, S. Addai-Henne, H. A. Dwamena, E. O. Owiredu, S. A. Ayeh, and J. Eshun, “A supervised machine learning algorithm for detecting and predicting fraud in credit card transactions,”Decision Analytics Journal, vol. 6, p. 100163, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/ S2772662223000036

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    Application of xgboost algorithm in bearing fault diagnosis,

    R. Zhang, B. Li, and B. Jiao, “Application of xgboost algorithm in bearing fault diagnosis,”IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, vol. 490, no. 7, p. 072062, apr 2019. [Online]. Available: https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/490/7/072062

    work page doi:10.1088/1757-899x/490/7/072062 2019

  8. [8]

    Kaggle machine learning & data science survey 2021,

    Kaggle, “Kaggle machine learning & data science survey 2021,” 2021. [Online]. Available: https://www.kaggle.com/kaggle-survey-2021

    work page 2021

Show all 52 references
  1. [9]

    Xgboost: A scalable tree boosting system,

    T. Chen and C. Guestrin, “Xgboost: A scalable tree boosting system,” inProceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, ser. KDD ’16. New York, NY , USA: Association for Computing Machinery, 2016, p. 785–794. [Online]. Availab...

    2016

  2. [10]

    Dynamic decision tree ensembles for energy-efficient inference on iot edge nodes,

    F. Daghero, A. Burrello, E. Macii, P. Montuschi, M. Poncino, and D. Jahier Pagliari, “Dynamic decision tree ensembles for energy-efficient inference on iot edge nodes,”IEEE Internet of Things Journal, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 742–757, 2024

    2024

  3. [11]

    Tahoe: tree structure-aware high performance inference engine for decision tree ensemble on gpu,

    Z. Xie, W. Dong, J. Liu, H. Liu, and D. Li, “Tahoe: tree structure-aware high performance inference engine for decision tree ensemble on gpu,” inProceedings of the Sixteenth European Conference on Computer Systems, ser. EuroSys ’21. New York, NY , USA: Association for Computin...

    2021

  4. [12]

    Fpga accelerator for gradient boosting decision trees,

    A. Alcolea and J. Resano, “Fpga accelerator for gradient boosting decision trees,”Electronics, vol. 10, p. 314, 01 2021

    2021

  5. [13]

    Accelerating a random forest classifier: Multi-core, gp-gpu, or fpga?

    B. Van Essen, C. Macaraeg, M. Gokhale, and R. Prenger, “Accelerating a random forest classifier: Multi-core, gp-gpu, or fpga?” in2012 IEEE 20th International Symposium on Field-Programmable Custom Computing Machines, 2012, pp. 232–239

    2012

  6. [14]

    Content-addressable memory (cam) circuits and architectures: a tutorial and survey,

    K. Pagiamtzis and A. Sheikholeslami, “Content-addressable memory (cam) circuits and architectures: a tutorial and survey,”IEEE Journal of Solid-State Circuits, vol. 41, no. 3, pp. 712–727, 2006

    2006

  7. [15]

    Isaac: a convolutional neural network accelerator with in-situ analog arithmetic in crossbars,

    A. Shafiee, A. Nag, N. Muralimanohar, R. Balasubramonian, J. P. Strachan, M. Hu, R. S. Williams, and V . Srikumar, “Isaac: a convolutional neural network accelerator with in-situ analog arithmetic in crossbars,” inProceedings of the 43rd International Symposium on Computer Arc...

    2016 doi

  8. [16]

    Prime: A novel processing-in-memory architecture for neural network computation in reram-based main memory,

    P. Chi, S. Li, C. Xu, T. Zhang, J. Zhao, Y . Liu, Y . Wang, and Y . Xie, “Prime: A novel processing-in-memory architecture for neural network computation in reram-based main memory,” in2016 ACM/IEEE 43rd Annual International Symposium on Computer Architecture (ISCA), 2016, pp. 27–39

    2016

  9. [17]

    An overview of computing-in-memory circuits with dram and nvm,

    S. Kim and H.-J. Yoo, “An overview of computing-in-memory circuits with dram and nvm,”IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems II: Express Briefs, vol. 71, no. 3, pp. 1626–1631, 2024

    2024

  10. [18]

    Rram-based tcams for pattern search,

    L. Zheng, S. Shin, S. Lloyd, M. Gokhale, K. Kim, and S.-M. Kang, “Rram-based tcams for pattern search,” in2016 IEEE International Symposium on Circuits and Systems (ISCAS), 2016, pp. 1382–1385

    2016

  11. [19]

    The trend of emerging non-volatile tcam for parallel search and ai applications,

    K.-J. Zhou, C. Mu, B. Wen, X.-M. Zhang, G.-J. Wu, C. Li, H. Jiang, X.-Y . Xue, S. Tang, C.-X. Chen, and Q. Liu, “The trend of emerging non-volatile tcam for parallel search and ai applications,”Chip, vol. 1, no. 2, p. 100012, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirec...

    2022

  12. [20]

    17.5 a 3t1r nonvolatile tcam using mlc reram with sub-1ns search time,

    M.-F. Chang, C.-C. Lin, A. Lee, C.-C. Kuo, G.-H. Yang, H.-J. Tsai, T.-F. Chen, S.-S. Sheu, P.-L. Tseng, H.-Y . Lee, and T.-K. Ku, “17.5 a 3t1r nonvolatile tcam using mlc reram with sub-1ns search time,” in2015 IEEE International Solid-State Circuits Conference - (ISSCC) Digest...

    2015

  13. [21]

    API design for machine learning software: experiences from the scikit-learn project,

    L. Buitinck, G. Louppe, M. Blondel, F. Pedregosa, A. Mueller, O. Grisel, V . Niculae, P. Prettenhofer, A. Gramfort, J. Grobler, R. Layton, J. Van- derPlas, A. Joly, B. Holt, and G. Varoquaux, “API design for machine learning software: experiences from the scikit-learn project,...

    2013

  14. [22]

    Random forests,

    L. Breiman, “Random forests,”Machine Learning, vol. 45, no. 1, pp. 5– 32, 2001. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010933404324

    2001 doi

  15. [23]

    Dt2cam: A decision tree to content addressable memory framework,

    M. Rakka, M. E. Fouda, R. Kanj, and F. Kurdahi, “Dt2cam: A decision tree to content addressable memory framework,”IEEE Transactions on Emerging Topics in Computing, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 805–810, 2023

    2023

  16. [24]

    Tree-based machine learning performed in-memory with memristive analog cam,

    G. Pedretti, C. E. Graves, S. Serebryakov, R. Mao, X. Sheng, M. Foltin, C. Li, and J. P. Strachan, “Tree-based machine learning performed in-memory with memristive analog cam,”Nature Communications, vol. 12, no. 1, p. 5806, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10. 1038/s...

    2021

  17. [25]

    X-time: Accelerating large tree ensem- bles inference for tabular data with analog cams,

    G. Pedretti, J. Moon, P. Bruel, S. Serebryakov, R. Roth, L. Buonanno, A. Gajjar, L. Zhao, T. Ziegler, C. Xu, M. Foltin, P. Faraboschi, J. Ignowski, and C. Graves, “X-time: Accelerating large tree ensem- bles inference for tabular data with analog cams,”IEEE Journal on Explorat...

    2024

  18. [26]

    A digital 3d tcam accelerator for the inference phase of random forest,

    C.-L. Tsai, C.-F. Wu, Y .-H. Chang, H.-W. Hu, Y .-C. Lee, H.-P. Li, and T.-W. Kuo, “A digital 3d tcam accelerator for the inference phase of random forest,” in2023 60th ACM/IEEE Design Automation Conference (DAC), 2023, pp. 1–6

    2023

  19. [27]

    Deep random forest with ferroelectric analog content addressable memory,

    X. Yin, F. M ¨uller, A. F. Laguna, C. Li, Q. Huang, Z. Shi, M. Lederer, N. Laleni, S. Deng, Z. Zhao, M. Imani, Y . Shi, M. Niemier, X. S. Hu, C. Zhuo, T. K ¨ampfe, and K. Ni, “Deep random forest with ferroelectric analog content addressable memory,”Science Advances, vol. 10, n...

    2024 doi

  20. [28]

    Out-of-bag estimation,

    L. Breiman, “Out-of-bag estimation,” 1996. [Online]. Available: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:17166335

    1996

  21. [29]

    Lightgbm: A highly efficient gradient boosting decision tree,

    G. Ke, Q. Meng, T. Finley, T. Wang, W. Chen, W. Ma, Q. Ye, and T.- Y . Liu, “Lightgbm: A highly efficient gradient boosting decision tree,” Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 30, 2017

    2017

  22. [30]

    Catboost: unbiased boosting with categorical features,

    L. Prokhorenkova, G. Gusev, A. V orobev, A. V . Dorogush, and A. Gulin, “Catboost: unbiased boosting with categorical features,”Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 31, 2018

    2018

  23. [31]

    Breiman, J

    L. Breiman, J. Friedman, R. A. Olshen, and C. J. Stone,Classification and Regression Trees, 1st ed. Chapman and Hall/CRC, 1984

    1984

  24. [32]

    Bagging predictors,

    L. Breiman, “Bagging predictors,”Mach. Learn., vol. 24, no. 2, p. 123–140, Aug. 1996. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1023/A: 1018054314350

    1996 doi

  25. [33]

    A brief introduction to boosting,

    R. E. Schapire, “A brief introduction to boosting,” inProceedings of the 16th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence - Volume 2, ser. IJCAI’99. San Francisco, CA, USA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., 1999, p. 1401–1406

    1999

  26. [34]

    Emerging trends in design and applications of memory-based computing and content-addressable memories,

    R. Karam, R. Puri, S. Ghosh, and S. Bhunia, “Emerging trends in design and applications of memory-based computing and content-addressable memories,”Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 103, no. 8, pp. 1311–1330, 2015

    2015

  27. [35]

    Advancements in content-addressable memory (cam) circuits: State-of-the-art, applica- tions, and future directions in the ai domain,

    T. Molom-Ochir, B. Taylor, H. Li, and Y . Chen, “Advancements in content-addressable memory (cam) circuits: State-of-the-art, applica- tions, and future directions in the ai domain,”IEEE Transactions on 14 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON COMPUTER-AIDED DESIGN OF INTEGRATED CIRCUITS AND S...

    2025

  28. [36]

    A ternary content- addressable memory (tcam) based on 4t static storage and including a current-race sensing scheme,

    I. Arsovski, T. Chandler, and A. Sheikholeslami, “A ternary content- addressable memory (tcam) based on 4t static storage and including a current-race sensing scheme,”IEEE Journal of Solid-State Circuits, vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 155–158, 2003

    2003

  29. [37]

    Becker and R

    B. Becker and R. Kohavi, “Adult,” UCI Machine Learning Repository, 1996, https://doi.org/10.24432/C5XW20

    1996 doi

  30. [38]

    Credit Approval,

    J. R. Quinlan, “Credit Approval,” UCI Machine Learning Repository, 1987, https://doi.org/10.24432/C5FS30

    1987 doi

  31. [39]

    Dry Bean,

    “Dry Bean,” UCI Machine Learning Repository, 2020, https://doi.org/ 10.24432/C50S4B

    2020 doi

  32. [40]

    Letter Recognition,

    D. Slate, “Letter Recognition,” UCI Machine Learning Repository, 1991, https://doi.org/10.24432/C5ZP40

    1991 doi

  33. [41]

    Wine quality,

    Cortez, Paulo, Cerdeira, A., Almeida, F., Matos, T., and Reis, J., “Wine quality,” UCI Machine Learning Repository, 2009, https://doi.org/10. 24432/C56S3T

    2009

  34. [42]

    Analog content-addressable memories with memristors,

    C. Li, C. E. Graves, X. Sheng, D. Miller, M. Foltin, G. Pedretti, and J. P. Strachan, “Analog content-addressable memories with memristors,” Nature Communications, vol. 11, no. 1, p. 1638, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-15254-4

    2020 doi

  35. [43]

    Noise injection adaption: End-to-end reram crossbar non-ideal effect adaption for neural network mapping,

    Z. He, J. Lin, R. Ewetz, J.-S. Yuan, and D. Fan, “Noise injection adaption: End-to-end reram crossbar non-ideal effect adaption for neural network mapping,” inProceedings of the 56th Annual Design Automation Conference 2019, ser. DAC ’19. New York, NY , USA: Association for Co...

    2019

  36. [44]

    On minimizing analog variation errors to resolve the scalability issue of reram-based crossbar accelerators,

    Y .-W. Kang, C.-F. Wu, Y .-H. Chang, T.-W. Kuo, and S.-Y . Ho, “On minimizing analog variation errors to resolve the scalability issue of reram-based crossbar accelerators,”IEEE Transactions on Computer- Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and Systems, vol. 39, no. 11, pp. 385...

    2020

  37. [45]

    Margin optimization based pruning for random forest,

    F. Yang, W. hang Lu, L. kai Luo, and T. Li, “Margin optimization based pruning for random forest,”Neurocomputing, vol. 94, pp. 54– 63, 2012. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/pii/S0925231212003396

    2012

  38. [46]

    Search for the smallest random forest,

    H. Zhang and M. Wang, “Search for the smallest random forest,” Statistics and its interface, vol. 2, p. 381, 01 2009

    2009

  39. [47]

    Smart sensors: Analysis of different types of iot sensors,

    D. Sehrawat and N. S. Gill, “Smart sensors: Analysis of different types of iot sensors,” in2019 3rd International Conference on Trends in Electronics and Informatics (ICOEI), 2019, pp. 523–528

    2019

  40. [48]

    A survey of research and practices of network-on-chip,

    T. Bjerregaard and S. Mahadevan, “A survey of research and practices of network-on-chip,”ACM Comput. Surv., vol. 38, no. 1, p. 1–es, Jun

  41. [49]

    The uci machine learning repository,

    M. Kelly, R. Longjohn, and K. Nottingham, “The uci machine learning repository,” https://archive.ics.uci.edu, 2024

    2024

  42. [50]

    ranger: A fast implementation of random forests for high dimensional data in c++ and r,

    M. Wright and A. Ziegler, “ranger: A fast implementation of random forests for high dimensional data in c++ and r,”Journal of Statistical Software, vol. 77, 08 2015

    2015

  43. [51]

    17.5 a 3t1r nonvolatile tcam using mlc reram with sub-1ns search time,

    M.-F. Chang, C.-C. Lin, A. Lee, C.-C. Kuo, G.-H. Yang, H.-J. Tsai, T.-F. Chen, S.-S. Sheu, P.-L. Tseng, H.-Y . Lee, and T.-K. Ku, “17.5 a 3t1r nonvolatile tcam using mlc reram with sub-1ns search time,” in2015 IEEE International Solid-State Circuits Conference - (ISSCC) Digest...

    2023

  44. [2006]

    Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/1132952.1132953

    [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/1132952.1132953

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.