Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 34 references

Jailbreak Detection in Clinical Training LLMs Using Feature-Based Predictive Models

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that classifiers built on four human-rated linguistic features detect jailbreak prompts in a clinical LLM platform more reliably than the platform's prompt-engineering guardrails, with the Fuzzy Decision Tree performing…

desk verdict Useful new annotated corpus and a fair comparison to prompt engineering, but the features are close paraphrases of the jailbreak label, so the headline accuracy numbers likely measure annotation consistency more than detection skill. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.00010 v1 pith:RCTAK65Q submitted 2025-04-21 cs.CL cs.AI

Tri Nguyen , Lohith Srikanth Pentapalli , Magnus Sieverding , Laurah Turner , Seth Overla , Weibing Zheng , Chris Zhou , David Furniss
show 6 more authors
Danielle Weber Michael Gharib Matt Kelleher Michael Shukis Cameron Pawlik Kelly Cohen
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CLcs.AI
keywords EducationalLLMsJailbreakDetectionClinicalSimulationFuzzyDecisionTreeGradient-OptimizedInferenceSystemLinguisticFeaturesPromptEngineeringExplainability
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

This paper asks whether jailbreak attempts in a clinical-training chatbot can be caught by scoring each student prompt on four linguistic dimensions instead of relying on guardrail instructions written into the prompt. Working with about 2,300 prompts from 158 conversations in the 2-Sigma medical-education platform, the authors had seven annotators rate professionalism, medical relevance, ethical behavior, and contextual distraction, then trained ordinary classifiers on those ratings. They report that every feature-based method beat prompt engineering, and that the Fuzzy Decision Tree did best, with accuracy 0.9479 and F1 0.9492. The result matters because it offers an explainable, rule-traceable detection path for a safety problem that is usually handled as a black-box prompt-moderation task.

What carries the argument

The mechanism is a four-variable linguistic annotation rubric: Professionalism, Medical Relevance, Ethical Behavior, and Contextual Distraction, each rated on an ordinal scale, with each prompt labeled by seven annotators and converted into 15 normalized scores (the proportion of annotators choosing each rating level). Those scores feed tree-based, fuzzy, boosting, linear, and neural classifiers. The central device in the best model is the Fuzzy Decision Tree, which replaces crisp binary splits with soft membership so that labels like 'borderline professionalism' or 'partially relevant' can contribute graded evidence to the jailbreak prediction.

What would settle it

Take a fresh set of, say, 500 student prompts from active 2-Sigma use, have the same seven-annotator rubric applied, and compare Fuzzy Decision Tree predictions with the consensus ground truth; if accuracy falls toward the 0.81 prompt-engineering level or annotator agreement collapses, the claim that these four features are sufficient would be refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that jailbreak behavior in an LLM-based clinical simulator leaves detectable linguistic footprints, and that a classifier built on those footprints is more accurate and more interpretable than the system's own prompt-engineering guardrails. On the 2-Sigma student–virtual-patient conversations, the Fuzzy Decision Tree achieved the best overall performance (accuracy 0.9479, F1 0.9492), with the Gradient-Optimized Fuzzy Inference System close behind, and all feature-based models substantially exceeded the Prompt Engineering baseline (accuracy 0.8119, F1 0.8381). The authors also find that the shallow decision tree singles out contextual distraction and medical irrelevance as the strongest signals, and that even logistic regression performs near the top, indicating the annotated features are linearly informative rather than requiring deep black-box models.

Load-bearing premise

The detection pipeline assumes human annotators are on hand to rate each prompt on four linguistic scales at detection time, while the paper reports no automatic feature extraction and states that real-time use is not yet addressed.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Jailbreak detection in the 2-Sigma platform can be treated as a transparent classification problem rather than a prompt-hardening problem, since interpretable models match or beat the guardrail baseline.
  • Operators can prioritize monitoring Contextual Distraction and Medical Relevance, because the shallow decision tree shows these features carry the most weight.
  • Because logistic regression is nearly as strong as the fuzzy tree, a simple linear scoring rule over the four rubric variables could serve as a low-cost, auditable first filter in production.
  • The authors' proposed next step is a hybrid pipeline in which rule-based models flag low-confidence cases for deeper prompt-based investigation, moving from binary detection toward a spectrum of suspicion.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper, the same four rubric variables could be generated automatically by an LLM judge instead of seven human annotators; whether that preserves the reported accuracy is a direct testable extension.
  • The near-linear separability the authors observe suggests the features may generalize to other educational LLM deployments, though the rubric's category definitions are tied to clinical dialogue and would need adaptation.
  • A practical deployment would likely need a confidence threshold and fallback human review for ambiguous prompts, since the current evaluation uses offline annotations rather than live streaming input.
  • The false-positive example ('Did you pee or poop today?') implies that a purely rule-based filter will misfire on informal but medically relevant language; a hybrid system would need to let contextual relevance override the professionalism signal.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes using four human-rated linguistic variables (Professionalism, Medical Relevance, Ethical Behavior, and Contextual Distraction) as features for supervised classifiers to detect jailbreak attempts in 2-Sigma, an LLM-based clinical education platform. The authors annotated about 2,300 prompts from 158 conversations, trained Decision Trees, Fuzzy Decision Trees, a Gradient-Optimized Fuzzy Inference System, Random Forest, LGBM, XGBoost, Logistic Regression, and a Neural Network on an 80/20 split, and compared them against a Prompt Engineering baseline. The Fuzzy Decision Tree achieves the highest accuracy (0.9479) and F1-score (0.9492), and the authors conclude that feature-based predictive models are effective and explainable alternatives that outperform prompt engineering, while acknowledging that real-time detection is not addressed.

Significance. If the proposed method worked as described, a compact, interpretable feature set for detecting jailbreak attempts in a clinical education LLM would be a useful contribution. The paper studies a real deployed system, defines a concrete annotation rubric, compares a broad set of standard classifiers, and reports performance metrics on a real dataset. It also explicitly acknowledges that real-time detection remains unsolved. However, the central result is currently not supported because the input features are not independent of the jailbreak label and because the evaluation protocol cannot distinguish detection skill from annotation consistency. The contribution as presented is therefore not yet at the level of a published claim about jailbreak detection.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 2, Table 1; Section 1] The four input features are defined almost synonymously with the jailbreak label, so the reported accuracies may measure annotator agreement rather than an independent detection signal. The ground truth is a binary 'jailbreak attempt' judgment made by two researchers, while seven annotators rate the same prompts on constructs such as 'harmful recommendations,' 'ignoring critical symptoms,' and 'strays from the established context'—all of which are near-paraphrases of 'bypassing ethical safeguards' and 'manipulating the AI system' used to define jailbreaking in Section 1. The authors further state that the features were selected because a preliminary review 'revealed strong correlations' with jailbreak behavior. Since the feature rubric and the label rubric overlap, a model trained on these features can appear accurate even if it has learned the annotators' decision rule rather than a generalizable jailbreak property. The absence of inter-annotator agreement statistics and any independence between the two annotation tasks makes this concern impossible to evaluate from the manuscript.
  2. [Section 5; Section 2] The proposed detection pipeline requires seven human annotators per prompt at run time, but no automatic feature extraction is implemented or evaluated. The paper itself states that 'the current approach does not address real-time detection, where prompts must be annotated and interpreted accurately as they occur.' Consequently, the Table 3 numbers describe offline classification of human ratings, not a method that can flag a jailbreak in an operational system. The abstract and conclusion frame the result as an 'effective ... alternative for jailbreak detection,' which overstates what was actually tested.
  3. [Section 4, Table 3] All model comparisons rest on a single 80/20 train-test split, with no confidence intervals, cross-validation, or significance testing. The leading differences are small—FDT accuracy 0.9479 versus LR 0.9458, and FDT F1 0.9492 versus GF 0.9449—so the claim that the Fuzzy Decision Tree achieved 'the best overall performance' is not statistically supported. Additionally, the fuzzy models' hyperparameters (13 membership functions per input and 2 rules for the FIS) are presented as fixed choices without sensitivity analysis, leaving open how robust the ranking is to these choices.
  4. [Section 3.8; Table 3] The Prompt Engineering baseline is not a like-for-like detector. PE is a set of prompt guardrails intended to prevent jailbreaks, not a classifier trained on the same feature representation or evaluated under the same protocol as the other methods. Comparing its accuracy, precision, recall, and F1 to classifiers trained on ground-truth labels conflates prevention with detection. The conclusion that 'feature-based predictive models consistently outperformed Prompt Engineering' therefore does not follow from a controlled comparison.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 2, example] In the normalized Contextual Distraction vector, the text lists 'highly distracting, moderately distracting, questionable (1.0), not distracting' but omits the corresponding 0.0 value for 'not distracting,' which would complete the normalized vector.
  2. [Table 3] The Neural Network row reports no ROC-AUC; either provide this value or state explicitly why it is omitted.
  3. [Section 3.7] The Neural Network description says the architecture has four layers with 32, 32, 16, and 16 neurons, but as written this omits the output layer and the total parameter count, leaving the architecture under-specified.
  4. [Section 2] The text says 'over 2,300 prompts' while the reported class counts sum to 1,155 + 1,146 = 2,301; consider reporting the exact total consistently throughout.
  5. [Section 3.7] There are typographical errors in this section, including 'backpropogation' and 'a wide variety if data distributions.'

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Feature rubrics substantially encode the jailbreak construct itself, so the high reported accuracy largely reflects construct overlap between inputs and labels; the PE comparison is also not an equivalent detector.

  1. self definitional [Section 1 (jailbreak definition) and Section 2 / Table 1 (feature rubrics)]
    "Jailbreaking ... refers to techniques that intentionally bypass built-in ethical constraints, safety, or alignment to make the model generate restricted or harmful outputs. ... [Table 1] Ethical Behavior reflects the prioritization of patient safety, autonomy, and well-being. Red flags include making harmful recommendations, ignoring critical symptoms, or engaging in actions that compromise informed consent or ethical standards of care. ... Professionalism ... Violations include ... behaviors that disregard patient safety, consent, or demonstrate abusive tendencies."

    The ground truth is a binary researcher judgment of whether a prompt is a jailbreak attempt (Section 2: 'Each prompt was evaluated by two members of the research team to determine whether it constituted a jailbreak attempt'). The four features are then annotated with rubrics whose red flags ('making harmful recommendations', 'ignoring critical symptoms', 'disregard patient safety', 'abusive tendencies') are near-paraphrases of the same construct: bypassing ethical safeguards to obtain harmful output. A model mapping these features to the jailbreak label is therefore learning to predict one human rating of the target construct from other human ratings of the same construct.

full rationale

The central circularity is construct overlap: the feature rubrics define professionalism/ethics violations using essentially the same language as the paper's definition of jailbreaking ('bypass ethical safeguards', 'harmful outputs'). Because both the target labels and the four features are human judgments from the same research team, with no reported inter-annotator agreement or blinding, the high classifier scores are not evidence of an independent linguistic signal. The paper compounds this by stating the variables were 'selected after a preliminary qualitative review of jailbreak patterns, which revealed strong correlations between these features and jailbreak behavior' — i.e., the input representation was chosen to track the target on the same 158 conversations. No load-bearing self-citation chain is present; references are standard ML/LLM citations. The Prompt Engineering comparison is not a like-for-like detector and is a separate validity concern, but it is not itself circularity. Overall, the prediction is partially circular by construction, so the score is 6 rather than higher: the models are genuine supervised learners on held-out labels, and some features (e.g., Medical Relevance, Contextual Distraction) are not pure synonyms of jailbreaking.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper contributes an empirical comparison; it relies on human annotation quality, feature selection on the same data, and standard supervised learning assumptions. No code or data is provided, and no new entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • FDT membership functions per input = 13
    Chosen architecture; no sensitivity analysis is reported for how the comparison depends on this.
  • FIS rule count = 2
    Chosen by hand; affects the gradient-optimized fuzzy system's flexibility and results.
  • DT3 max depth = 3
    Chosen to improve interpretability; compared against a full-depth default decision tree.
  • NN layer sizes = 32, 32, 16, 16
    Fixed architecture with no tuning or search reported.
  • 80/20 train-test split = 80/20
    Single split, no repeated splits, cross-validation, or seed reporting.
assumptions (4)
  • ad hoc to paper The four linguistic variables are sufficient proxies for jailbreak behavior
    Selected after a preliminary qualitative review of the same 158 conversations; no independent validation that these features cover the space of jailbreak attempts.
  • domain assumption Binary jailbreak ground truth by two research team members is reliable
    No inter-annotator agreement, adjudication procedure, or reliability statistic is reported in Section 2.
  • domain assumption Prompts are independent training samples
    The 80/20 split ignores clustering within 158 conversations; prompts from the same conversation may appear in both train and test sets.
  • domain assumption Normalized annotation proportions are valid numeric features
    The 15 normalized ratings treat ordinal levels as independent dimensions; the paper provides no validation of this encoding.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Jailbreak Detection in Clinical Training LLMs Using Feature-Based Predictive Models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RCTAK65Q

@misc{pith2026250500010,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Jailbreak Detection in Clinical Training LLMs Using Feature-Based Predictive Models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RCTAK65Q}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.00010}
}
read the original abstract

Jailbreaking in Large Language Models (LLMs) threatens their safe use in sensitive domains like education by allowing users to bypass ethical safeguards. This study focuses on detecting jailbreaks in 2-Sigma, a clinical education platform that simulates patient interactions using LLMs. We annotated over 2,300 prompts across 158 conversations using four linguistic variables shown to correlate strongly with jailbreak behavior. The extracted features were used to train several predictive models, including Decision Trees, Fuzzy Logic-based classifiers, Boosting methods, and Logistic Regression. Results show that feature-based predictive models consistently outperformed Prompt Engineering, with the Fuzzy Decision Tree achieving the best overall performance. Our findings demonstrate that linguistic-feature-based models are effective and explainable alternatives for jailbreak detection. We suggest future work explore hybrid frameworks that integrate prompt-based flexibility with rule-based robustness for real-time, spectrum-based jailbreak monitoring in educational LLMs.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Z., Fredrikson, M.: Universal and Trans- ferable Adversarial Attacks on Aligned Language Models

    Zou, A., Wang, Z., Carlini, N., Nasr, M., Kolter, J. Z., Fredrikson, M.: Universal and Trans- ferable Adversarial Attacks on Aligned Language Models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.15043 (2023). https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.15043

    arXiv 2023

  2. [2]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.00614 (2023)

    Jain, N., Schwarzschild, A., Wen, Y., Somepalli, G., Kirchenbauer, J., Chiang, P., Gold- blum, M., Saha, A., Geiping, J., Goldstein, T.: Baseline Defenses for Adversarial Attacks Against Aligned Language Models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.00614 (2023). https://arxiv.org/abs/2309.00614

    arXiv 2023

  3. [3]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.04295 (2024)

    Yi, S., Liu, Y., Sun, Z., Cong, T., He, X., Song, J., Xu, K., Li, Q.: Jailbreak Attacks and Defenses Against Large Language Models: A Survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.04295 (2024). https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.04295

    arXiv 2024

  4. [4]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.18104 (2024)

    Liu, T., Zhang, Y., Zhao, Z., Dong, Y., Meng, G., Chen, K.: Making Them Ask and Answer: Jailbreaking Large Language Models in Few Queries via Disguise and Reconstruction. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.18104 (2024). https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.18104

    arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.01288 (2024)

    Zheng, X., Pang, T., Du, C., Liu, Q., Jiang, J., Lin, M.: Improved Few -Shot Jailbreaking Can Circumvent Aligned Language Models and Their Defenses. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.01288 (2024). https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.01288

    arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.12173 (2023)

    Greshake, K., Abdelnabi, S., Mishra, S., Endres, C., Holz, T., Fritz, M.: Not What You’ve Signed Up For: Compromising Real -World LLM -Integrated Applications with Indirect Prompt Injection. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.12173 (2023). https://arxiv.org/abs/2302.12173

    arXiv 2023

  7. [7]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.13916 (2022)

    Hendrycks, D., Carlini, N., Schulman, J., Steinhardt, J.: Unsolved Problems in ML Safety. arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.13916 (2022). https://arxiv.org/abs/2109.13916. 11

    arXiv 2022

  8. [8]

    M., Mukkamala, R

    Rossi, S., Michel, A. M., Mukkamala, R. R., Thatcher, J. B.: An Early Categorization of Prompt Injection Attacks on Large Language Models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.00898 (2024). https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.00898

    arXiv 2024

Show all 34 references
  1. [9]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.16205 (2025)

    Lin, S., Yang, H., Lin, D., Li, R., Wang, X., Lin, C., Xing, W., Han, M.: LLMs can be Dangerous Reasoners: Analyzing-based Jailbreak Attack on Large Language Models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.16205 (2025). https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.16205

    2025 arXiv

  2. [10]

    A., Shanto, M

    Saiem, B. A., Shanto, M. S. H., Ahsan, R., Rashid, M. R. U.: SequentialBreak: Large Lan- guage Models Can be Fooled by Embedding Jailbreak Prompts into Sequential Prompt Chains. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.06426 (2025). https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.06426

    2025 arXiv

  3. [11]

    A., Isaac, W., Legassick, S., Irving, G., Ga- briel, I.: Ethical and Social Risks of Harm from Language Models

    Weidinger, L., Mellor, J., Rauh, M., Griffin, C., Uesato, J., Huang, P.-S., Cheng, M., Glaese, M., Balle, B., Kasirzadeh, A., Kenton, Z., Brown, S., Hawkins, W., Stepleton, T., Biles, C., Birhane, A., Haas, J., Rimell, L., Hendricks, L. A., Isaac, W., Legassick, S., Irving, G....

    2021 arXiv

  4. [12]

    arXiv pre- print arXiv:2201.11903 (2023)

    Wei, J., Wang, X., Schuurmans, D., Bosma, M., Ichter , B., Xia, F., Chi, E., Le, Q., Zhou, D.: Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Models. arXiv pre- print arXiv:2201.11903 (2023). https://arxiv.org/abs/2201.11903

    2023 arXiv

  5. [13]

    S., Reid, M., Matsuo, Y., Iwasawa, Y.: Large Language Models are Zero- Shot Reasoners

    Kojima, T., Gu, S. S., Reid, M., Matsuo, Y., Iwasawa, Y.: Large Language Models are Zero- Shot Reasoners. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.11916 (2023). https://arxiv.org/abs/2205.11916

    2023 arXiv

  6. [14]

    arXiv pre- print arXiv:2203.11171 (2023)

    Wang, X., Wei, J., Schuurmans, D., Le, Q., Chi, E., Narang, S., Chowdhery, A., Zhou, D.: Self-Consistency Improves Chain of Thought Reasoning in Language Models. arXiv pre- print arXiv:2203.11171 (2023). https://arxiv.org/abs/2203.11171

    2023 arXiv

  7. [15]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.08387 (2022)

    Liu, J., Liu, A., Lu, X., Welleck, S., West, P., Le Bras, R., Choi, Y., Hajishirzi, H.: Generated Knowledge Prompting for Commonsense Reasoning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.08387 (2022). https://arxiv.org/abs/2110.08387

    2022 arXiv

  8. [16]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.10625 (2023)

    Zhou, D., Schärli, N., Hou, L., Wei, J., Scales, N., Wang, X., Schuurmans, D., Cui, C., Bousquet, O., Le, Q., Chi, E.: Least -to-Most Prompting Enables Complex Reasoning in Large Language Models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.10625 (2023). https://arxiv.org/abs/2205.10625

    2023 arXiv

  9. [17]

    L., Cao, Y., Narasimhan, K.: Tree of Thoughts: Deliberate Problem Solving with Large Language Models

    Yao, S., Yu, D., Zhao, J., Shafran, I., Griffiths, T. L., Cao, Y., Narasimhan, K.: Tree of Thoughts: Deliberate Problem Solving with Large Language Models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.10601 (2023). https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.10601

    2023 arXiv

  10. [18]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.15248 (2024)

    Cambria, E., Malandri, L., Mercorio, F., Nobani, N., Seveso, A.: XAI meets LLMs: A Sur- vey of the Relation between Explainable AI and Large Language Models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.15248 (2024). https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.15248

    2024 arXiv

  11. [19]

    -S., Kay, J., Knight, S., Martinez-Maldonado, R., Sadiq, S., Gašević, D.: Explainable Artificial Intelligence in Edu- cation

    Khosravi, H., Buckingham Shum, S., Chen, G., Conati, C., Tsai, Y. -S., Kay, J., Knight, S., Martinez-Maldonado, R., Sadiq, S., Gašević, D.: Explainable Artificial Intelligence in Edu- cation. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 3, 100074 (2022). https://doi.org/1...

    2022

  12. [20]

    Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 5, 100152 (2023)

    Memarian, B., Doleck, T.: Fairness, Accountability, Transparency, and Ethics (FATE) in Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Higher Education: A Systematic Review. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 5, 100152 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2023.100152

    2023

  13. [21]

    Electronics, 14(7), 1294 (2025)

    Thurzo, A.: Provable AI Ethics and Explainability in Medical and Educational AI Agents: Trustworthy Ethical Firewall. Electronics, 14(7), 1294 (2025). https://www.mdpi.com/2079-9292/14/7/1294

    2025

  14. [22]

    Journal of Machine Learning Research, 12, 2825–2830 (2011)

    Pedregosa, F., Varoquaux, G., Gramfort, A., Michel, V., Thirion, B., Grisel, O., Blondel, M., Prettenhofer, P., Weiss, R., Dubourg, V., Vanderplas, J., Passos, A., Cournapeau, D., 12 Brucher, M., Perrot, M., Duchesnay, E.: Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in Python. Journal of M...

    2011

  15. [23]

    https://ba- lins.github.io/fuzzytree/index.html (accessed April 6, 2025)

    Balins, K.: FuzzyTree: Interpretable Fuzzy Decision Trees in Python. https://ba- lins.github.io/fuzzytree/index.html (accessed April 6, 2025)

    2025

  16. [24]

    Fernandez-Delgado, M., Cernadas, E., Barro, S., Amorim, D.: Do We Need Hundreds of Classifiers to Solve Real World Classification Problems? Journal of Machine Learning Re- search, 15, 3133–3181 (2014)

    2014

  17. [25]

    -Y.: LightGBM: A Highly Efficient Gradient Boosting Decision Tree

    Ke, G., Meng, Q., Finley, T., Wang, T., Chen, W., Ma, W., Ye, Q., Liu, T. -Y.: LightGBM: A Highly Efficient Gradient Boosting Decision Tree. Advances in Neural Information Pro- cessing Systems, 30, 3149–3157 (2017)

    2017

  18. [26]

    Random Forests

    Breiman, L. Random Forests. Machine Learning 45, 5 –32 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010933404324

    2001 doi

  19. [27]

    In: Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, 785–794 (2016)

    Chen, T., Guestrin, C.: XGBoost: A Scalable Tree Boosting System. In: Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, 785–794 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1145/2939672.2939785

    2016

  20. [28]

    https://github.com/dmlc/xgboost (ac- cessed April 6, 2025)

    Chen, T., Guestrin, C.: XGBoost GitHub Repository. https://github.com/dmlc/xgboost (ac- cessed April 6, 2025)

    2025

  21. [29]

    -Y.: LightGBM GitHub Repository

    Ke, G., Meng, Q., Finley, T., Wang, T., Chen, W., Ma, W., Ye, Q., Liu, T. -Y.: LightGBM GitHub Repository. https://github.com/microsoft/LightGBM (accessed April 6, 2025)

    2025

  22. [30]

    Integrated Computer -Aided Engineering, 32(1), 25 –38 (2025)

    Succetti, F., Rosato, A., Panella, M.: Multi-Label Classification with Imbalanced Classes by Fuzzy Deep Neural Networks. Integrated Computer -Aided Engineering, 32(1), 25 –38 (2025)

    2025

  23. [31]

    A.: Fuzzy Sets

    Zadeh, L. A.: Fuzzy Sets. Information and Control, 8(3), 338–353 (1965)

    1965

  24. [32]

    LeCun, Y., Bengio, Y., & Hinton, G. (2015). Deep learning. Nature, 521(7553), 436-444

    2015

  25. [33]

    Goodfellow, I., Bengio, Y., & Courville, A. (2016). Deep Learning. MIT Press

    2016

  26. [34]

    E., Hinton, G

    Rumelhart, D. E., Hinton, G. E., & Williams, R. J. (1986). Learning representations by back- propagating errors. Nature, 323(6088), 533-536

    1986

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.