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
Citations
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
Improving propensity score weighting using machine learning.
TL;DR: The authors examine the performance of various CART‐based propensity score models using simulated data and suggest that ensemble methods, especially boosted CART, may be useful for propensity score weighting.
Journal ArticleDOI
An extensive experimental comparison of methods for multi-label learning
TL;DR: The results of the analysis show that for multi-label classification the best performing methods overall are random forests of predictive clustering trees (RF-PCT) and hierarchy of multi- label classifiers (HOMER), followed by binary relevance (BR) and classifier chains (CC).
Journal ArticleDOI
Feature Selection for Classification of Hyperspectral Data by SVM
Mahesh Pal,Giles M. Foody +1 more
TL;DR: Support vector machines (SVM) are attractive for the classification of remotely sensed data with some claims that the method is insensitive to the dimensionality of the data and, therefore, does not require a dimensionality-reduction analysis in preprocessing, but it is shown that the accuracy of a classification by an SVM does vary as a function of the number of features used.
Book
Extending the Linear Model with R
TL;DR: Extending the linear model with R as mentioned in this paper, Extending the Linear Model with R (LMM) with R, and Extended the Linear Models with R with R(LMM).
Book ChapterDOI
Educational Data Mining and Learning Analytics
TL;DR: How these methods emerged in the early days of research in this area is discussed, which methods have seen particular interest in the EDM and learning analytics communities, and how this has changed as the field matures and has moved to making significant contributions to both educational research and practice.
References
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
Bagging predictors
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
Yoav Freund,Robert E. Schapire +1 more
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
Eric Bauer,Ron Kohavi +1 more
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.