Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 29 references

BACON: A fully explainable AI model with graded logic for decision making problems

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read BACON trains a graded-logic aggregation tree that is transparent by construction, and on the WDBC breast cancer dataset it reaches 98.07% accuracy using all 30 features with no feature selection or fine-tuning.

desk verdict Novel and honest, but the central 'fully automatic explainability' claim is undercut by manual tree construction and post-hoc selection; worthwhile for a serious referee after major revision. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.14510 v3 pith:UNYXKG42 submitted 2025-05-20 cs.AI cs.LG

Haishi Bai , Jozo Dujmovic , Jianwu Wang This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.AIcs.LG
keywords explainableAIgradedlogicLSPaggregationtreescoringofpreferenceGumbel-Sinkhornpermutationfeatureattributionbreastcancerdiagnosishuman-AIcollaboration
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

BACON sets out to show that an automatically trained model can be fully explainable without giving up accuracy. Its central claim is that by replacing a neuron's weighted sum with a graded-logic aggregation operator, a binary tree can be learned that expresses the decision as an LSP graded-logic formula—an explicit conjunction/disjunction tree with per-input importance weights and andness values. On the WDBC breast cancer benchmark, the paper reports 98.07% accuracy using all 30 features with no feature selection or problem-specific tuning, while pruning leaves only 7 clinically meaningful features. If this holds, high-stakes domains like medical diagnosis could get black-box-level performance together with decision logic that a human expert can read, audit, and adjust.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the andness-directed graded conjunction/disjunction operator $\mathrm{GCD}_2(x,y;w,\alpha)$, a two-input logic aggregation that interpolates continuously from pure disjunction ($\alpha=0$) through the arithmetic mean ($\alpha=0.5$) to pure conjunction ($\alpha=1$), with hyper-conjunctive and hyper-disjunctive extremes. Composed in a left-associative binary tree, these operators form an LSP (Logic Scoring of Preference) aggregation tree that gives every internal node a semantic label such as 'must have all' or 'nice to have some'; the Gumbel-Sinkhorn layer supplies the search mechanism over input orderings. The same tree is simultaneously the model's explanation: its structure shows which features are mandatory, desired, optional, or sufficient, and its output is a closed-form arithmetic expression that can be evaluated without any ML framework.

What would settle it

Run BACON with many random seeds on a dataset whose optimal decision boundary is known to be non-logical (for example, a high-dimensional random-label set or a smooth nonlinear function without conjunctive/disjunctive structure) and check whether training consistently fails or produces unstable, contradictory trees. A sharper version: on the WDBC benchmark, compare repeated runs with different seeds to see whether the reported 98.07% accuracy and the 7-feature explanation are reproducible or whether the stochastic permutation search selects different, equally accurate trees.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's discovery is a training procedure that converges on an interpretable graded-logic aggregation structure rather than a statistical black box. A BACON network is a two-layer architecture: a Gumbel-Sinkhorn permutation layer that searches the $n!$ input orderings, followed by a left-associative binary tree whose internal nodes are GCD$_2$ aggregators $\mathrm{GCD}_2(x,y;w,\alpha)$, where $w$ sets relative importance and $\alpha$ sets the degree of conjunction versus disjunction. Training alternates stochastic permutation exploration with a Hungarian-algorithm freeze of the best ordering, then fine-tunes weights and andness values. The trained tree is prunable and can be read as a symbolic LSP expression; in the breast cancer study it yields 98.07% out-of-the-box accuracy, identifies 7 of 30 features as decisive, and expresses malignancy as a strict conjunction between a large-cell group and a high-irregularity feature. The paper takes this as evidence that data-driven decisions can be made end-to-end transparent while staying competitive with optimized ensembles.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise, stated by the paper, is that the data contains an intrinsic logical aggregation structure that a human can read; if no such structure exists, the model will not converge and no amount of training will produce a meaningful explanation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A pruned BACON tree can be reduced to a standalone symbolic expression, so deployment on edge devices or real-time controllers needs no neural-network runtime.
  • Feature importance comes from the tree structure itself: pruning shows which inputs actually change accuracy, giving a decision-centric ranking rather than a post-hoc approximation.
  • Changing one threshold maps the continuous truth value to a binary decision, letting a clinician favor recall during screening or precision during treatment planning on the same trained model.
  • Because the model's output is a degree of truth, BACON can be translated into natural-language reports, making the logic accessible to non-specialists.
  • On the benchmark, choosing all 30 features and doing no preprocessing other than normalization matches the practical accuracy of optimized black-box ensembles, while keeping the decision path visible.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension: use non-convergence as a diagnostic signal for whether a dataset admits a transparent logical explanation at all; the paper's own assumption implies this, but the idea is not developed there.
  • A structural extension the paper leaves open: moving from the left-associative tree to a balanced or hybrid layout could let the model express group interactions and equitable feature participation that the current sequential tree cannot represent.
  • Because correlated features produce several near-equally accurate explanations in the breast cancer study, an editor's reading is that a single chosen tree may understate the ambiguity in the data; a small set of diverse trees would give clinicians a more honest picture.
  • The Boolean experiments suggest OR-dominated and deeply nested expressions are harder to learn; a natural stress test would quantify how learning time and convergence rate scale with the fraction of disjunctions in the target logic.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes BACON, a two-layer architecture combining a Gumbel-Sinkhorn permutation layer with a binary tree of Graded Conjunction/Disjunction (GCD) operators from LSP theory, and claims that it trains fully explainable decision models end-to-end while achieving high accuracy. The model is evaluated on Boolean expression recovery, Iris classification, house-purchase decisions, and the WDBC breast cancer dataset, where Section 4.1 reports 98.07% accuracy and a compact, clinically aligned LSP tree. The paper argues that BACON provides structural transparency, feature attribution, compositional transparency, and human-AI collaboration beyond what post-hoc explainability methods or decision trees offer.

Significance. If the central claim were fully substantiated, BACON would be a meaningful contribution: it combines a differentiable graded-logic architecture with a trainable permutation search, and it produces compact symbolic trees that are prunable, human-readable, and deployable without an ML framework. The LSP/GCD formalization is coherent and the code is made available. The Boolean experiments give some evidence that the architecture can recover nested logic expressions. However, the significance is conditional because the paper's own appendices show that the headline WDBC explanation is manually constructed and accuracy-selected, and because no held-out evaluation protocol is reported. With the current evidence, the paper demonstrates the feasibility of training LSP trees, but not the full 'automatically explainable' claim made in the abstract.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4.1 and Appendix G.3/G.4] The central claim that BACON automatically produces the reported symbolic explanation is not supported: G.3 states that the authors 'chose the top five important features as highlighted in Table 7 and manually constructed the LSP aggregation tree shown in Figure 4,' and G.4 states that they selected the final explanation because it yielded the highest accuracy. The Figure 4 tree is therefore a human-curated, accuracy-selected reconstruction, not the trained network's own output. Since §1.1 defines end-to-end explainability as tracing the full decision pathway of the model, the manuscript must either (a) show that the automatically trained model produces the displayed tree, or (b) clearly present the manual tree as a post-hoc explanatory artifact and re-frame the central claim. In addition, §4.1 reports 98.07% accuracy 'out of the box,' while Table 8 lists Explanation 10 with 98.95% as the chosen final explanation; these numbers describe different models, so the main text must reconcile them.
  2. [§4.1 and Appendix G] No train/test split is described for the WDBC experiment; the text reports '98.07% (95% CI: [97.85%, 98.29%])' without saying whether the CI comes from cross-validation, a held-out test set, or resampling on the training data. Because pruning (Section 4.2) and explanation selection (G.4) are performed after observing accuracy, the reported performance is at risk of selection bias. The authors should specify the evaluation protocol, report held-out (or cross-validated) accuracy for the final selected explanation, and give the accuracy of the unpruned and pruned networks on the same split.
  3. [§3.2, Appendix F, Table 8] The stochastic search over 30! permutations is not characterized. Appendix F states that 'in most cases the training can finish under 5 attempts' but also that 'if a network fails to converge after 5 attempts, you may want to adjust other hyper-parameters and try again.' Since Table 8 lists ten explanations with different feature sets and accuracies, and G.4 says the final explanation was selected by accuracy, the reader cannot tell whether the headline result reflects a robust property of BACON or an artifact of multiple restarts and post-hoc selection. The paper should report the number of attempts used, the distribution of results across seeds, and the selection rule.
  4. [Appendix B and Table 3] The Boolean approximation and Iris experiments are reported without sufficient rigor. Appendix B says synthetic data were generated 'by repeating all possible input combinations 100 times,' but no train/test partition, no comparison baseline, and no measure of how often training succeeds are given. Table 3 reports 96.67% accuracy for Setosa and Virginica, yet no description of the split or evaluation procedure appears, and the lack of a Versicolor model is interpreted as 'real-world ambiguity' (Appendix C) without supporting evidence. These experiments need a defined protocol to substantiate the claim that BACON recovers logic from data.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Appendix E and Algorithm 1] There are several typos: the table header 'Andess' should be 'Andness,' Section 3.1 has 'resursively' for 'recursively,' and Algorithm 1 has 'pemutation' for 'permutation.'
  2. [Appendix H] The prompt in Appendix H refers to the 'WDSD dataset,' which should be 'WDBC.'
  3. [General] The code link is an anonymous URL (https://anonymous.4open.science/r/bacon-net); the final version should provide a persistent repository identifier.
  4. [Table 2] Table 2 reports thresholds 0.01, 0.46, and 0.63 with accuracies 63.97%, 98.77%, and 98.42%, which differ from the 98.07% claimed in §4.1; the relationship between these numbers and the main accuracy result should be clarified.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Manual, accuracy-selected LSP tree is presented as BACON's automatic explanation; central explainability claim is partially circular.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Appendix G.3 (Constructing the LSP aggregation tree)]
    "In this work, we chose the top five important features as highlighted in Table 7 and manually constructed the LSP aggregation tree shown in Figure 4 and applied certain simplifications."

    The paper's central claim is that BACON automatically trains a symbolic, interpretable model (Section 2.1) and that Figure 4 is “the LSP aggregation tree constructed from the pruned BACON network” (Section 4.3). This appendix admits the tree was manually constructed from a top-five feature list. The explanation presented as BACON's trained output is therefore an author-fitted artifact, not a model prediction; the claimed automatic explainability is supplied by hand rather than derived from the model.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Appendix G.4 (Multiple explanations)]
    "In the paper, we chose the final explanation because it yielded the highest accuracy."

    The explanation was selected post hoc by evaluating candidate explanations against the data and keeping the one with highest accuracy. This is a fitted selection, not an independent derivation from the trained network. Since the selected explanation is then used to demonstrate BACON's “precise, logic-based symbolic explanations” (abstract) and “automatically uncover interpretable ... decision logic” (conclusion), the evidence for the central claim reduces to an accuracy-maximizing choice made by the authors rather than a prediction generated by the model.

full rationale

The training pipeline itself is not circular: BACON fits weights, andness parameters, and a permutation by minimizing a loss function, and the resulting network computes predictions. The circularity concerns the claimed explanation. The abstract and Section 2.1 state that BACON automatically trains a symbolic interpretable model, and Section 4.3 presents Figure 4 as the LSP aggregation tree constructed from the pruned BACON network. However, Appendix G.3 says the displayed tree was manually constructed from the top five features, and Appendix G.4 says the final explanation was chosen because it yielded the highest accuracy. Thus the headline explanation is not an automatic model output; it is a hand-fitted, accuracy-selected artifact. Presenting this curated tree as BACON's trained structure makes the explanation a fitted input renamed as a prediction, partially undermining the central explainability claim. The citations to Dujmović's LSP framework are background material and are not treated as circular here; the circularity comes specifically from the manual construction and accuracy-based selection of the explanation. The discrepancy between the reported 98.07% out-of-the-box accuracy and the 98.95% accuracy of the selected explanation further indicates that the explained artifact is not demonstrably the same model whose accuracy is reported, but that is a correctness and validation concern rather than an additional circularity step. Overall, the mathematical derivation of BACON's aggregator is self-contained, but the paper's signature demonstration of automatic symbolic explanation reduces, in part, to authorial selection rather than model derivation.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on trained parameters (andness, weights, decision thresholds) and on the domain assumption that data contains intrinsic logical structure. The LSP and Gumbel-Sinkhorn machinery are standard prior work; no new entities are postulated.

free parameters (5)
  • andness α_i per GCD node = e.g., values in Table 7 ranging from -0.95 to 1.99
    Trained parameter determining the conjunction/disjunction strength at each tree node; central to the aggregation logic.
  • weights w_i per GCD node = e.g., 0.6225 to 0.9974 in Table 7
    Trained importance weights; regularized toward 0.5 to maintain interpretability.
  • sigmoid normalizer parameters = not reported
    Custom normalizer in Appendix G.1 chosen because Min-Max was slightly worse; its center and sharpness are not specified.
  • loss amplifier a and weight penalty λ = defaults not fully specified (a=1.0 default; λ variable)
    Hyperparameters scaling the loss; the freeze threshold must be multiplied by the amplifier (Appendix F).
  • binary decision threshold = 0.5 default; 0.01, 0.46, 0.63 in Table 2
    Chosen per scenario to trade precision and recall in the breast cancer use case.
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Gumbel-Sinkhorn provides a differentiable approximation of permutation matrices (Mena et al., 2018).
    Used in Section 3.2 for the input permutation layer; treated as established.
  • standard math The LSP/GCD aggregation functions satisfy the stated andness ranges and interpolation (Dujmović 2018, 2025).
    The piecewise GCD definition in Section 3.1 is taken from the cited LSP literature without proof in this paper.
  • domain assumption Intrinsic logical structures exist in the data (Section 3.3.3).
    States that if BACON does not converge, it implies no human-interpretable logic exists; the explainability guarantee depends on this.
  • domain assumption Inputs after normalization represent degrees of truth of claims (Section 3.3.3, Appendix G.1).
    The graded logic interpretation requires this semantic mapping, including the custom sigmoid normalizer.
  • ad hoc to paper The left-associative binary tree can represent the decision logic of the tasks (Section 5).
    The paper acknowledges this structure limits complex feature interactions and is 'not ideal for feature grouping' (Section 5).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of BACON: A fully explainable AI model with graded logic for decision making problems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UNYXKG42

@misc{pith2026250514510,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: BACON: A fully explainable AI model with graded logic for decision making problems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UNYXKG42}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.14510}
}
read the original abstract

As machine learning models and autonomous agents are increasingly deployed in high-stakes, real-world domains such as healthcare, security, finance, and robotics, the need for transparent and trustworthy explanations has become critical. To ensure end-to-end transparency of AI decisions, we need models that are not only accurate but also fully explainable and human-tunable. We introduce BACON, a novel framework for automatically training explainable AI models for decision making problems using graded logic. BACON achieves high predictive accuracy while offering full structural transparency and precise, logic-based symbolic explanations, enabling effective human-AI collaboration and expert-guided refinement. We evaluate BACON with a diverse set of scenarios: classic Boolean approximation, Iris flower classification, house purchasing decisions and breast cancer diagnosis. In each case, BACON provides high-performance models while producing compact, human-verifiable decision logic. These results demonstrate BACON's potential as a practical and principled approach for delivering crisp, trustworthy explainable AI.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.14510 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (1) A graded propositional logic model structured as a binary tree; (2) A sample job [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. High-level architecture of BACON 3.2 Training process BACON models are trained using a custom two-phase process. In the early phase, the permutation layer is configured with a high Gumbel noise scale and Sinkhorn temperature to encourage exploration of input permutations. This allows the aggregation layer to be trained based on soft feature assignments, which are adjusted simultaneously. Once the model achieves a su… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Feature attribution with BACON: (1) important vs. irrelevant features; (2) conjunction; [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Breast cancer diagnosis process modeled as LSP aggregation tree [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Converting to degree of truth to binary output (threshold = 0.5) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Boolean circuit for (((((((A or B) or C) and D) and E) and F) or G) or H) [WolframAlpha] [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: BACON aggregation tree for (((((((A or B) or C) and D) and E) and F) or G) or H) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: LSP aggregation trees for Iris classification [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: House purchasing decisions D BACON house purchasing decision experiments For house purchasing decision experiment, we use the US Real Estate Dataset from Kaggle [Sakib, 2024]. The dataset containers 2.2 million samples with five numeric fields: price, bed, bath, acre_l…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Breast cancer dataset feature correlation matrix [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Decision Tree for breast cancer diagnosis [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_11.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

29 extracted references · 18 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Towards a rigorous science of interpretable machine learning, 2017

    Finale Doshi-Velez and Been Kim. Towards a rigorous science of interpretable machine learning, 2017. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/1702.08608

    arXiv 2017

  2. [2]

    Zachary C. Lipton. The mythos of model interpretability, 2017. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/1606.03490

    arXiv 2017

  3. [3]

    Interpretable Machine Learning

    Christoph Molnar. Interpretable Machine Learning. 3 edition, 2025. ISBN 978-3-911578-03-5. URL https://christophm.github.io/interpretable-ml-book

    2025

  4. [4]

    The next decade in AI: four steps towards robust artificial intelligence

    Gary Marcus. The next decade in AI: four steps towards robust artificial intelligence. CoRR, abs/2002.06177, 2020. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2002.06177

    arXiv 2002

  5. [5]

    Gabbay Artur S

    Dov M. Gabbay Artur S. d’Avila Garcez, Luís C. Lamb. Neural-Symbolic Cognitive Reasoning, chapter 4. Springer, 2008

    work page 2008

  6. [6]

    Distilling free-form natural laws from experimental data

    Michael Schmidt and Hod Lipson. Distilling free-form natural laws from experimental data. Science, 324 0 (5923): 0 81--85, 2009. doi:10.1126/science.1165893. URL https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.1165893

    doi:10.1126/science.1165893 2009

  7. [7]

    Hou, and Max Tegmark

    Ziming Liu, Yixuan Wang, Sachin Vaidya, Fabian Ruehle, James Halverson, Marin Soljačić, Thomas Y. Hou, and Max Tegmark. Kan: Kolmogorov-arnold networks, 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.19756

    arXiv 2025

  8. [8]

    Do Two AI Scientists Agree?

    Xinghong Fu, Ziming Liu, and Max Tegmark. Do two ai scientists agree?, 2025. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.02822

    work page Pith review arXiv 2025

Show all 29 references
  1. [9]

    Neural logic machines

    Honghua Dong, Jiayuan Mao, Tian Lin, Chong Wang, Lihong Li, and Denny Zhou. Neural logic machines. CoRR, abs/1904.11694, 2019. URL http://arxiv.org/abs/1904.11694

    1904 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Soft Computing Evaluation Logic

    Jozo Dujmovi\' c . Soft Computing Evaluation Logic. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 2018. ISBN 9781119256489. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119256489.ch3. URL https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/9781119256489.ch3

    2018 doi

  3. [11]

    Graded logic for decision support systems

    Jozo Dujmovi\' c . Graded logic for decision support systems. Int. J. Intell. Syst., 34 0 (11): 0 2900–2919, September 2019. ISSN 0884-8173. doi:10.1002/int.22177. URL https://doi.org/10.1002/int.22177

    2019 doi

  4. [12]

    Graded Logic

    Jozo Dujmovi\' c . Graded Logic. Springer Cham, 2025. In press

    2025

  5. [13]

    Weighted conjunctive and disjunctive means and their application in system evaluation

    Jozo Dujmovi\' c . Weighted conjunctive and disjunctive means and their application in system evaluation. Publications de la Faculté d’Electrotechnique de l’Université à Belgrade. Série Mathématiques et Physique, 483, 01 1974

    1974

  6. [14]

    Learning latent permutations with gumbel-sinkhorn networks, 2018

    Gonzalo Mena, David Belanger, Scott Linderman, and Jasper Snoek. Learning latent permutations with gumbel-sinkhorn networks, 2018. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/1802.08665

    2018 arXiv

  7. [15]

    H. W. Kuhn. The hungarian method for the assignment problem. Naval Research Logistics Quarterly, 2 0 (1-2): 0 83--97, 1955. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/nav.3800020109. URL https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/nav.3800020109

    1955 doi

  8. [16]

    why should i trust you?

    Marco Tulio Ribeiro, Sameer Singh, and Carlos Guestrin. "why should i trust you?": Explaining the predictions of any classifier. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD, pages 1135--1144, 2016

    2016

  9. [17]

    A unified approach to interpreting model predictions

    Scott M Lundberg and Su-In Lee. A unified approach to interpreting model predictions. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 30, 2017

    2017

  10. [18]

    Classification and Regression Trees

    Leo Breiman, Jerome H Friedman, Richard A Olshen, and Charles J Stone. Classification and Regression Trees. Wadsworth International Group, 1984

    1984

  11. [19]

    Interpretml: A transparent machine learning system

    Harsha Nori, Samuel Jenkins, Paul Koch, and Rich Caruana. Interpretml: A transparent machine learning system. In Proceedings of the 25th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining, pages 3173--3174, 2019

    2019

  12. [20]

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

    1993 doi

  13. [21]

    Enhancing breast cancer detection and classification using advanced multi-model features and ensemble machine learning techniques

    Mana Saleh Al Reshan, Samina Amin, Muhammad Ali Zeb, Adel Sulaiman, Hani Alshahrani, Ahmad Taher Azar, and Asadullah Shaikh. Enhancing breast cancer detection and classification using advanced multi-model features and ensemble machine learning techniques. Life (Basel), 13 0 (1...

    2023 doi

  14. [22]

    Tumor cell morphology

    Alina Ioana Baba and Cornel C \^a toi. Tumor cell morphology. In Comparative Oncology, chapter 3. The Publishing House of the Romanian Academy, Bucharest, Romania, 2007. URL https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK9553/

    2007

  15. [23]

    Accurate breast cancer diagnosis using a stable feature ranking algorithm

    Shaode Yu, Mingxue Jin, Tianhang Wen, Linlin Zhao, Xuechao Zou, Xiaokun Liang, Yaoqin Xie, Wanlong Pan, and Chenghao Piao. Accurate breast cancer diagnosis using a stable feature ranking algorithm. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 23 0 (1): 0 64, 2023. doi:10.1186/...

    2023 doi

  16. [24]

    Boolean algebra

    WolframAlpha . Boolean algebra. https://www.wolframalpha.com/ examples/mathematics/ logic-and-set-theory/ boolean-algebra. Accessed: 2025-04-03

    2025

  17. [25]

    R.A. Fisher. The use of multiple measurements in taxonomic problems. Annals of Eugenics, 7 0 (2): 0 179--188, 1936

    1936

  18. [26]

    An Introduction to Statistical Learning: with Applications in R

    Gareth James, Daniela Witten, Trevor Hastie, and Robert Tibshirani. An Introduction to Statistical Learning: with Applications in R. Springer, 2013. ISBN 9781461471370

    2013

  19. [27]

    Flower classification using supervised learning

    Asmita Shukla, Ankita Agarwal, Hemlata Pant, and Priyanka Mishra. Flower classification using supervised learning. Int. J. Eng. Res, 9 0 (05): 0 757--762, 2020

    2020

  20. [28]

    Uci machine learning repository: Iris data set

    Dua Dheeru and Efi Karra Taniskidou. Uci machine learning repository: Iris data set. https://archive.ics.uci.edu/ml/datasets/iris, 2017

    2017

  21. [29]

    Usa real estate dataset, 2024

    Ahmed Shahriar Sakib. Usa real estate dataset, 2024. URL https://www.kaggle.com/ds/3202774

    2024

Pith tools

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