Is rotation forest the best classifier for problems with continuous features?
In short, our experiments suggest that yes, on average, rotation forest is better than the most common alternatives when all the attributes are real-valued. Rotation forest is a tree based ensemble that performs transforms on subsets of attributes prior to constructing each tree. We present an empirical comparison of classifiers for problems with only real-valued features. We evaluate classifiers from three families of algorithms: support vector machines; tree-based ensembles; and neural networks tuned with a large grid search. We compare classifiers on unseen data based on the quality of the decision rule (using classification error) the ability to rank cases (area under the receiver operating characteristic) and the probability estimates (using negative log likelihood). We conclude that, in answer to the question posed in the title, yes, rotation forest is significantly more accurate on average than competing techniques when compared on three distinct sets of datasets. Further, we assess the impact of the design features of rotation forest through an ablative study that transforms random forest into rotation forest. We identify the major limitation of rotation forest as its scalability, particularly in number of attributes. To overcome this problem we develop a model to predict the train time of the algorithm and hence propose a contract version of rotation forest where a run time cap is imposed {\em a priori}. We demonstrate that on large problems rotation forest can be made an order of magnitude faster without significant loss of accuracy. We also show that there is no real benefit (on average) from tuning rotation forest. We maintain that without any domain knowledge to indicate an algorithm preference, rotation forest should be the default algorithm of choice for problems with continuous attributes.