Pith. sign in

Randomization Can Reduce Both Bias and Variance: A Case Study in Random Forests

1 Pith paper cite this work. Polarity classification is still indexing.

1 Pith paper citing it
abstract

We study the often overlooked phenomenon, first noted in \cite{breiman2001random}, that random forests appear to reduce bias compared to bagging. Motivated by an interesting paper by \cite{mentch2020randomization}, where the authors explain the success of random forests in low signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) settings through regularization, we explore how random forests can capture patterns in the data that bagging ensembles fail to capture. We empirically demonstrate that in the presence of such patterns, random forests reduce bias along with variance and can increasingly outperform bagging ensembles when SNR is high. Our observations offer insights into the real-world success of random forests across a range of SNRs and enhance our understanding of the difference between random forests and bagging ensembles. Our investigations also yield practical insights into the importance of tuning $mtry$ in random forests.

fields

stat.ML 1

years

2025 1

verdicts

CONDITIONAL 1

representative citing papers

When do Random Forests work?

stat.ML · 2025-04-17 · conditional · novelty 4.0

Randomizing split directions in forests helps when variance dominates bias, which occurs at low signal-to-noise ratio and with correlated covariates, but hurts when irrelevant covariates or fat-tailed features make bias dominant.

citing papers explorer

Showing 1 of 1 citing paper.

  • When do Random Forests work? stat.ML · 2025-04-17 · conditional · none · ref 17 · internal anchor

    Randomizing split directions in forests helps when variance dominates bias, which occurs at low signal-to-noise ratio and with correlated covariates, but hurts when irrelevant covariates or fat-tailed features make bias dominant.