scispace - formally typeset
Open AccessJournal ArticleDOI

Random Forests

Leo Breiman
- Vol. 45, Iss: 1, pp 5-32
TLDR
Internal estimates monitor error, strength, and correlation and these are used to show the response to increasing the number of features used in the forest, and are also applicable to regression.
Abstract
Random forests are a combination of tree predictors such that each tree depends on the values of a random vector sampled independently and with the same distribution for all trees in the forest. The generalization error for forests converges a.s. to a limit as the number of trees in the forest becomes large. The generalization error of a forest of tree classifiers depends on the strength of the individual trees in the forest and the correlation between them. Using a random selection of features to split each node yields error rates that compare favorably to Adaboost (Y. Freund & R. Schapire, Machine Learning: Proceedings of the Thirteenth International conference, aaa, 148–156), but are more robust with respect to noise. Internal estimates monitor error, strength, and correlation and these are used to show the response to increasing the number of features used in the splitting. Internal estimates are also used to measure variable importance. These ideas are also applicable to regression.

read more

Content maybe subject to copyright    Report

Citations
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI

High-throughput assays for promiscuous inhibitors

TL;DR: Two rapid assays for detecting promiscuous aggregates that were used to test two preliminary computational models of this phenomenon and as benchmarks to develop new models are reported.
Journal ArticleDOI

The effects of climate extremes on global agricultural yields

TL;DR: This paper analyzed the impacts of climate extremes on yield anomalies of maize, soybeans, rice and spring wheat at the global scale using sub-national yield data and applying a machine-learning algorithm.
Journal ArticleDOI

Predicting customer retention and profitability by using random forests and regression forests techniques

TL;DR: The research findings demonstrate that both random forests techniques provide better fit for the estimation and validation sample compared to ordinary linear regression and logistic regression models, and suggest that past customer behavior is more important to generate repeat purchasing and favorable profitability evolutions.
Journal ArticleDOI

Comparison of imputation methods for missing laboratory data in medicine

TL;DR: MissForest is a highly accurate method of imputations for missing laboratory data and outperforms other common imputation techniques in terms of imputation error and maintenance of predictive ability with imputed values in two clinical predicative models.
Book

Data Mining With R: Learning By Case Studies

TL;DR: Data Mining with R: Learning with Case Studies as mentioned in this paper uses practical examples to illustrate the power of R and data mining, assuming no prior knowledge of R or data mining/statistical techniques.
References
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI

Bagging predictors

Leo Breiman
TL;DR: Tests on real and simulated data sets using classification and regression trees and subset selection in linear regression show that bagging can give substantial gains in accuracy.
Proceedings Article

Experiments with a new boosting algorithm

TL;DR: This paper describes experiments carried out to assess how well AdaBoost with and without pseudo-loss, performs on real learning problems and compared boosting to Breiman's "bagging" method when used to aggregate various classifiers.
Journal ArticleDOI

The random subspace method for constructing decision forests

TL;DR: A method to construct a decision tree based classifier is proposed that maintains highest accuracy on training data and improves on generalization accuracy as it grows in complexity.
Journal ArticleDOI

An Experimental Comparison of Three Methods for Constructing Ensembles of Decision Trees: Bagging, Boosting, and Randomization

TL;DR: In this article, the authors compared the effectiveness of randomization, bagging, and boosting for improving the performance of the decision-tree algorithm C4.5 and found that in situations with little or no classification noise, randomization is competitive with bagging but not as accurate as boosting.
Journal ArticleDOI

An Empirical Comparison of Voting Classification Algorithms: Bagging, Boosting, and Variants

TL;DR: It is found that Bagging improves when probabilistic estimates in conjunction with no-pruning are used, as well as when the data was backfit, and that Arc-x4 behaves differently than AdaBoost if reweighting is used instead of resampling, indicating a fundamental difference.
Related Papers (5)