Abstract

Breiman, Friedman, Gordon and Stone recognized that tree classifiers would be very valuable to practicing statisticians. Their cart algorithm became very popular indeed. Designing tree-based classifiers, however, has its pitfalls. It is easy to make them too simple or too complicated so that Bayes risk consistency is compromised. In this talk, we explore the relationship between algorithmic complexity of tree-based methods and performance.

References

  1. 1.
    Amit, Y., Geman, D.: Shape quantization and recognition with randomized trees. Neural Computation 9, 1545–1588 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Biau, G., Devroye, L., Lugosi, G.: Consistency of random forests and other averaging classifiers. Journal of Machine Learning Research 9, 2015–2033 (2008)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Biau, G., Devroye, L.: On the layered nearest neighbour estimate, the bagged nearest neighbour estimate and the random forest method in regression and classification. Technical Report (2008)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Breiman, L.: Bagging predictors. Machine Learning 24, 123–140 (1996)MATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Breiman, L.: Arcing classifiers. The Annals of Statistics 24, 801–849 (1998)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Breiman, L.: Some infinite theory for predictor ensembles. Technical Report 577, Statistics Department, UC Berkeley (2000), http://www.stat.berkeley.edu/~breiman
  7. 7.
    Breiman, L.: Random forests. Machine Learning 45, 5–32 (2001)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Breiman, L.: Consistency for a simple model of random forests. Technical Report 670, Statistics Department, UC Berkeley (2004), http://www.stat.berkeley.edu/~breiman
  9. 9.
    Breiman, L., Friedman, J., Olshen, R., Stone, C.: Classification and Regression Trees. CRC Press, Boca Raton (1984)MATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cutler, A., Zhao, G.: Pert – Perfect random tree ensembles. Computing Science and Statistics 33, 490–497 (2001)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Devroye, L., Györfi, L., Lugosi, G.: A Probabilistic Theory of Pattern Recognition. Springer, New York (1996)MATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dietterich, T.G.: An experimental comparison of three methods for constructing ensembles of decision trees: bagging, boosting, and randomization. Machine Learning 40, 139–157 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dietterich, T.G.: Ensemble methods in machine learning. In: Kittler, J., Roli, F. (eds.) MCS 2000. LNCS, vol. 1857, pp. 1–15. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Freund, Y., Shapire, R.: Experiments with a new boosting algorithm. In: Saitta, L. (ed.) Machine Learning: Proceedings of the 13th International Conference, pp. 148–156. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (1996)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lin, Y., Jeon, Y.: Random forests and adaptive nearest neighbors. Journal of the American Statistical Association 101, 578–590 (2006)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nilsson, N.J.: Learning Machines: Foundations of Trainable Pattern Classifying Systems. McGraw-Hill, New York (1965)MATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rosenblatt, F.: Principles of Neurodynamics: Perceptrons and the Theory of Brain Mechanisms. Spartan Books, Washington (1962)MATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Stoller, D.S.: Univariate two-population distribution-free discrimination. Journal of the American Statistical Association 49, 770–777 (1954)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Vapnik, V.N., Chervonenkis, A.: On the uniform convergence of relative frequencies of events to their probabilities. Theory of Probability and its Applications 16, 264–280 (1971)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Luc Devroye
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Computer ScienceMcGill UniversityMontrealCanada

Personalised recommendations