Ensemble methods use multiple learning algorithms to obtain better predictive performance than could be obtained from any of the constituent learning algorithms alone. (Wikipedia)
Instead of only comparing XGBoost and Random Forest in this post we will try to explain how to use those two very popular approaches with Bayesian Optimisation and that are those models main pros and cons. XGBoost (XGB) and Random Forest (RF) both are ensemble learning methods and predict (classification or regression) by combining the outputs from individual decision trees (we assume tree-based XGB or RF). XGBoost build decision tree one each time. Each new tree corrects errors which were made by previously trained decision tree. At Addepto we use XGBoost models to solve anomaly detection problems e.g. in supervised learning approach.
Background: Major depressive disorder (MDD) or depression is among the most prevalent psychiatric disorders, affecting more than 300 million people globally. Early detection is critical for rapid intervention, which can potentially reduce the escalation of the disorder. Objective: This study used data from social media networks to explore various methods of early detection of MDDs based on machine learning. We performed a thorough analysis of the dataset to characterize the subjects' behavior based on different aspects of their writings: textual spreading, time gap, and time span. Methods: We proposed 2 different approaches based on machine learning singleton and dual.
Which is better: Random Forest or Neural Network? This is a common question, with a very easy answer: it depends:). I will try to show you when it is good to use Random Forest and when to use Neural Network. First of all, Random Forest (RF) and Neural Network (NN) are different types of algorithms. The RF is the ensemble of decision trees.
Dependence numbers close to one indicate that the feature is completely predictable using the other features, which means it could be dropped without affecting accuracy. For example, the mean radius is extremely important in predicting mean perimeter and mean area, so we can probably drop those two. It also looks like radius error is important to predicting perimeter error and area error, so we can drop those last two. Mean and worst texture also appear to be dependent, so we can drop one of those too. Similarly, let's drop concavity error and fractal dimension error because compactness error seems to predict them well.
Random Forest is a flexible, easy to use machine learning algorithm that produces, even without hyper-parameter tuning, a great result most of the time. It is also one of the most used algorithms, because it's simplicity and the fact that it can be used for both classification and regression tasks. In this post, you are going to learn, how the random forest algorithm works and several other important things about it. Random Forest is a supervised learning algorithm. Like you can already see from it's name, it creates a forest and makes it somehow random.
By seeking the narrowest prediction intervals (PIs) that satisfy the specified coverage probability requirements, the recently proposed quality-based PI learning principle can extract high-quality PIs that better summarize the predictive certainty in regression tasks, and has been widely applied to solve many practical problems. Currently, the state-of-the-art quality-based PI estimation methods are based on deep neural networks or linear models. In this paper, we propose Highest Density Interval Regression Forest (HDI-Forest), a novel quality-based PI estimation method that is instead based on Random Forest. HDI-Forest does not require additional model training, and directly reuses the trees learned in a standard Random Forest model. By utilizing the special properties of Random Forest, HDI-Forest could efficiently and more directly optimize the PI quality metrics. Extensive experiments on benchmark datasets show that HDI-Forest significantly outperforms previous approaches, reducing the average PI width by over 30\% while achieving the same or better coverage probability.
This toolkit serves to execute RFEX 2.0 "pipeline" e.g. a set of steps to produce information which comprises RFEX 2.0 summary namely information to enhance explainability of Random Forest classifier. It comes with the synthetically generated test database which helps to demonstrate how RFEX 2.0 works. Wth this toolkit users can also use their own data to generate RFEX 2.0 summary. Background of the RFEX 2.0 method, as well as the description and access to the synthetic test database convenient to test and demonstrate can be found in TR 18.01 at cs.sfsu.edu Users are strongly advised to read the above report before using this toolkit.
Tree ensembles, such as random forests and AdaBoost, are ubiquitous machine learning models known for achieving strong predictive performance across a wide variety of domains. However, this strong performance comes at the cost of interpretability (i.e. users are unable to understand the relationships a trained random forest has learned and why it is making its predictions). In particular, it is challenging to understand how the contribution of a particular feature, or group of features, varies as their value changes. To address this, we introduce Disentangled Attribution Curves (DAC), a method to provide interpretations of tree ensemble methods in the form of (multivariate) feature importance curves. For a given variable, or group of variables, DAC plots the importance of a variable(s) as their value changes. We validate DAC on real data by showing that the curves can be used to increase the accuracy of logistic regression while maintaining interpretability, by including DAC as an additional feature. In simulation studies, DAC is shown to out-perform competing methods in the recovery of conditional expectations. Finally, through a case-study on the bike-sharing dataset, we demonstrate the use of DAC to uncover novel insights into a dataset.