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
A survey on ensemble learning
TL;DR: Challenges and possible research directions for each mainstream approach of ensemble learning are presented and an extra introduction is given for the combination of ensemblelearning with other machine learning hot spots such as deep learning, reinforcement learning, etc.
Journal ArticleDOI
The Soil Microbiome Influences Grapevine-Associated Microbiota
Iratxe Zarraonaindia,Iratxe Zarraonaindia,Sarah M. Owens,Sarah M. Owens,Pamela Weisenhorn,Kristin West,Jarrad T. Hampton-Marcell,Jarrad T. Hampton-Marcell,Simon Lax,Nicholas A. Bokulich,David A. Mills,Gilles Martin,Safiyh Taghavi,Daniel van der Lelie,Jack A. Gilbert +14 more
TL;DR: It is shown that soil serves as a key source of vine-associated bacteria and that edaphic factors and vineyard-specific properties can influence the native grapevine microbiome preharvest.
Proceedings ArticleDOI
Learning to detect phishing emails
TL;DR: This method is applicable, with slight modification, to detection of phishing websites, or the emails used to direct victims to these sites, and correctly identify over 96% of the phishing emails while only mis-classifying on the order of 0.1%" of the legitimate emails.
Proceedings Article
Result Analysis of the NIPS 2003 Feature Selection Challenge
TL;DR: The NIPS 2003 workshops included a feature selection competition organized by the authors, which took place over a period of 13 weeks and attracted 78 research groups and used a variety of methods for feature selection.
Proceedings ArticleDOI
Fast and accurate image upscaling with super-resolution forests
TL;DR: This paper shows the close relation of previous work on single image super-resolution to locally linear regression and demonstrates how random forests nicely fit into this framework, and proposes to directly map from low to high-resolution patches using random forests.
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.