REVIEW 1 cited by
Randomization Can Reduce Both Bias and Variance: A Case Study in Random Forests
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
Signed reviews
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.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
When do Random Forests work?
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 bi...
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.