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
Novel Speech Signal Processing Algorithms for High-Accuracy Classification of Parkinson's Disease
TL;DR: It is found that some of the recently proposed dysphonia measures complement existing algorithms in maximizing the ability of the classifiers to discriminate healthy controls from PD subjects, and are seen as an important step toward noninvasive diagnostic decision support in PD.
Journal ArticleDOI
Genomic Selection in Plant Breeding: A Comparison of Models
TL;DR: Comparisons suggested that GS in plant breeding programs could be based on a reduced set of models such as the Bayesian Lasso, weighted Bayesian shrinkage regression (wBSR, a fast version of BayesB), and random forest (RF) (a machine learning method that could capture nonadditive effects).
Proceedings ArticleDOI
An empirical evaluation of supervised learning in high dimensions
TL;DR: To the surprise, the method that performs consistently well across all dimensions is random forests, followed by neural nets, boosted trees, and SVMs, and the effect of increasing dimensionality on the performance of the learning algorithms changes.
Journal ArticleDOI
Virality prediction and community structure in social networks
TL;DR: It is demonstrated that the future popularity of a meme can be predicted by quantifying its early spreading pattern in terms of community concentration, and the more communities a meme permeates, the more viral it is.
Posted Content
Reconciling modern machine learning practice and the bias-variance trade-off
TL;DR: This paper reconciles the classical understanding and the modern practice within a unified performance curve that subsumes the textbook U-shaped bias-variance trade-off curve by showing how increasing model capacity beyond the point of interpolation results in improved performance.
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.