Paper detail

Sharp Analysis of a Simple Model for Random Forests

Random forests have become an important tool for improving accuracy in regression and classification problems since their inception by Leo Breiman in 2001. In this paper, we revisit a historically important random forest model originally proposed by Breiman in 2004 and later studied by Gérard Biau in 2012, where a feature is selected at random and the splits occurs at the midpoint of the node along the chosen feature. If the regression function is Lipschitz and depends only on a small subset of $ S $ out of $ d $ features, we show that, given access to $ n $ observations and properly tuned split probabilities, the mean-squared prediction error is $ O((n(\log n)^{(S-1)/2})^{-\frac{1}{S\log2+1}}) $. This positively answers an outstanding question of Biau about whether the rate of convergence for this random forest model could be improved. Furthermore, by a refined analysis of the approximation and estimation errors for linear models, we show that this rate cannot be improved in general. Finally, we generalize our analysis and improve extant prediction error bounds for another random forest model in which each tree is constructed from subsampled data and the splits are performed at the empirical median along a chosen feature.

preprint2020arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.