Double random forest

被引:47
作者
Han, Sunwoo [1 ]
Kim, Hyunjoong [2 ]
Lee, Yung-Seop [3 ]
机构
[1] Fred Hutchinson Canc Res Ctr, Vaccine & Infect Dis Div, Seattle, WA 98006 USA
[2] Yonsei Univ, Dept Appl Stat, Seoul 03722, South Korea
[3] Dongguk Univ, Dept Stat, Seoul 04620, South Korea
基金
新加坡国家研究基金会;
关键词
Classification; Ensemble; Random forest; Bootstrap; Decision tree; CLASSIFICATION TREES; ALGORITHMS; ENSEMBLES;
D O I
10.1007/s10994-020-05889-1
中图分类号
TP18 [人工智能理论];
学科分类号
081104 ; 0812 ; 0835 ; 1405 ;
摘要
Random forest (RF) is one of the most popular parallel ensemble methods, using decision trees as classifiers. One of the hyper-parameters to choose from for RF fitting is the nodesize, which determines the individual tree size. In this paper, we begin with the observation that for many data sets (34 out of 58), the best RF prediction accuracy is achieved when the trees are grown fully by minimizing the nodesize parameter. This observation leads to the idea that prediction accuracy could be further improved if we find a way to generate even bigger trees than the ones with a minimum nodesize. In other words, the largest tree created with the minimum nodesize parameter may not be sufficiently large for the best performance of RF. To produce bigger trees than those by RF, we propose a new classification ensemble method called double random forest (DRF). The new method uses bootstrap on each node during the tree creation process, instead of just bootstrapping once on the root node as in RF. This method, in turn, provides an ensemble of more diverse trees, allowing for more accurate predictions. Finally, for data where RF does not produce trees of sufficient size, we have successfully demonstrated that DRF provides more accurate predictions than RF.
引用
收藏
页码:1569 / 1586
页数:18
相关论文
共 37 条
[1]   Microarray learning with ABC [J].
Amaratunga, Dhammika ;
Cabrera, Javier ;
Kovtun, Vladimir .
BIOSTATISTICS, 2008, 9 (01) :128-136
[2]  
Asuncion A, 2007, UCI machine learning repository
[3]   A comparison of decision tree ensemble creation techniques [J].
Banfield, Robert E. ;
Hall, Lawrence O. ;
Bowyer, Kevin W. ;
Kegelmeyer, W. P. .
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON PATTERN ANALYSIS AND MACHINE INTELLIGENCE, 2007, 29 (01) :173-180
[4]   An empirical comparison of voting classification algorithms: Bagging, boosting, and variants [J].
Bauer, E ;
Kohavi, R .
MACHINE LEARNING, 1999, 36 (1-2) :105-139
[5]   Overview of random forest methodology and practical guidance with emphasis on computational biology and bioinformatics [J].
Boulesteix, Anne-Laure ;
Janitza, Silke ;
Kruppa, Jochen ;
Koenig, Inke R. .
WILEY INTERDISCIPLINARY REVIEWS-DATA MINING AND KNOWLEDGE DISCOVERY, 2012, 2 (06) :493-507
[6]   Random forests [J].
Breiman, L .
MACHINE LEARNING, 2001, 45 (01) :5-32
[7]   Random forests [J].
Breiman, L .
MACHINE LEARNING, 2001, 45 (01) :5-32
[8]   XGBoost: A Scalable Tree Boosting System [J].
Chen, Tianqi ;
Guestrin, Carlos .
KDD'16: PROCEEDINGS OF THE 22ND ACM SIGKDD INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON KNOWLEDGE DISCOVERY AND DATA MINING, 2016, :785-794
[9]   Ensemble methods in machine learning [J].
Dietterich, TG .
MULTIPLE CLASSIFIER SYSTEMS, 2000, 1857 :1-15
[10]  
Dimitriadou E, 2010, MLBENCH MACHINE LEAR