Topic
Random subspace method
About: Random subspace method is a research topic. Over the lifetime, 3426 publications have been published within this topic receiving 177106 citations.
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
[...]
TL;DR: 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.
79,257 citations
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.
Abstract: Much of previous attention on decision trees focuses on the splitting criteria and optimization of tree sizes. The dilemma between overfitting and achieving maximum accuracy is seldom resolved. 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. The classifier consists of multiple trees constructed systematically by pseudorandomly selecting subsets of components of the feature vector, that is, trees constructed in randomly chosen subspaces. The subspace method is compared to single-tree classifiers and other forest construction methods by experiments on publicly available datasets, where the method's superiority is demonstrated. We also discuss independence between trees in a forest and relate that to the combined classification accuracy.
5,984 citations
TL;DR: A common theoretical framework for combining classifiers which use distinct pattern representations is developed and it is shown that many existing schemes can be considered as special cases of compound classification where all the pattern representations are used jointly to make a decision.
Abstract: We develop a common theoretical framework for combining classifiers which use distinct pattern representations and show that many existing schemes can be considered as special cases of compound classification where all the pattern representations are used jointly to make a decision. An experimental comparison of various classifier combination schemes demonstrates that the combination rule developed under the most restrictive assumptions-the sum rule-outperforms other classifier combinations schemes. A sensitivity analysis of the various schemes to estimation errors is carried out to show that this finding can be justified theoretically.
5,670 citations
TL;DR: This work suggests that most of the gain in an ensemble's performance comes in the first few classifiers combined; however, relatively large gains can be seen up to 25 classifiers when Boosting decision trees.
Abstract: An ensemble consists of a set of individually trained classifiers (such as neural networks or decision trees) whose predictions are combined when classifying novel instances. Previous research has shown that an ensemble is often more accurate than any of the single classifiers in the ensemble. Bagging (Breiman, 1996c) and Boosting (Freund & Schapire, 1996; Schapire, 1990) are two relatively new but popular methods for producing ensembles. In this paper we evaluate these methods on 23 data sets using both neural networks and decision trees as our classification algorithm. Our results clearly indicate a number of conclusions. First, while Bagging is almost always more accurate than a single classifier, it is sometimes much less accurate than Boosting. On the other hand, Boosting can create ensembles that are less accurate than a single classifier - especially when using neural networks. Analysis indicates that the performance of the Boosting methods is dependent on the characteristics of the data set being examined. In fact, further results show that Boosting ensembles may overfit noisy data sets, thus decreasing its performance. Finally, consistent with previous studies, our work suggests that most of the gain in an ensemble's performance comes in the first few classifiers combined; however, relatively large gains can be seen up to 25 classifiers when Boosting decision trees.
2,672 citations
02 Jul 2004
TL;DR: This combining pattern classifiers methods and algorithms helps people to enjoy a good book with a cup of coffee in the afternoon, instead they cope with some harmful virus inside their computer.
Abstract: Thank you for downloading combining pattern classifiers methods and algorithms. Maybe you have knowledge that, people have look hundreds times for their chosen novels like this combining pattern classifiers methods and algorithms, but end up in infectious downloads. Rather than enjoying a good book with a cup of coffee in the afternoon, instead they cope with some harmful virus inside their computer.
2,667 citations