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
Book ChapterDOI

Spam detection on twitter using traditional classifiers

TL;DR: This paper crawled active Twitter users, their followers/ following information and their most recent 100 tweets, and evaluated the detection scheme based on the suggested user and content-based features, showing that among the four classifiers, the Random Forest classifier produces the best results.
Patent

System and methods for detecting malicious email transmission

TL;DR: In this article, a system and methods of detecting an occurrence of a violation of an email security policy of a computer system is defined which is derived from statistics relating to the prior emails.
Journal ArticleDOI

A Comparison of Decision Tree Ensemble Creation Techniques

TL;DR: An algorithm is introduced that decides when a sufficient number of classifiers has been created for an ensemble, and is shown to result in an accurate ensemble for those methods that incorporate bagging into the construction of the ensemble.
Journal ArticleDOI

OPERA models for predicting physicochemical properties and environmental fate endpoints

TL;DR: This study aims to develop robust QSAR/QSPR models for chemical properties of environmental interest that can be used for regulatory purposes and uses data from the publicly available PHYSPROP database, a set of 13 common physicochemical and environmental fate properties.
Journal ArticleDOI

A search-classify approach for cluttered indoor scene understanding

TL;DR: This work presents a search-classify approach which interleaves segmentation and classification in an iterative manner and demonstrates successful classification and reconstruction of cluttered indoor scenes, captured in just few minutes.
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)