Denoising random forests
Masaya Hibinoa , Akisato Kimurab,∗, Takayoshi Yamashitaa , Yuji Yamauchia , Hironobu
Fujiyoshia,∗∗

arXiv:1710.11004v1 [cs.CV] 30 Oct 2017

b NTT

a Chubu University, Kasugai, Aichi, 487-0027 Japan
Communication Science Laboratories, Atsugi, Kanagawa, 243-0198 Japan.

Abstract
This paper proposes a novel type of random forests called a denoising random forests
that are robust against noises contained in test samples. Such noise-corrupted samples
cause serious damage to the estimation performances of random forests, since unexpected
child nodes are often selected and the leaf nodes that the input sample reaches are
sometimes far from those for a clean sample. Our main idea for tackling this problem
originates from a binary indicator vector that encodes a traversal path of a sample in
the forest. Our proposed method effectively employs this vector by introducing denoising
autoencoders into random forests. A denoising autoencoder can be trained with indicator
vectors produced from clean and noisy input samples, and non-leaf nodes where incorrect
decisions are made can be identified by comparing the input and output of the trained
denoising autoencoder. Multiple traversal paths with respect to the nodes with incorrect
decisions caused by the noises can then be considered for the estimation.
Keywords: Random forests, regression, denoising autoencoder

1. Introduction
Random forests [2], which constitute an ensemble learning method using multiple decision trees, have a successful history in machine learning, and have many appealing properties that attract a wide range of researchers and engineers. Their flexible framework
makes it possible to apply them not only to classification problems but also to regression,
density estimation, semi-supervised learning, and manifold learning [5]. Random forests
have also been experimentally demonstrated to perform well even when handling highdimensional data problems [4]. In addition, they are inherently distributable on parallel
hardware architectures while being close to an ideal learner [6, 10, 11, 16]. Random
forests are also used for various computer vision tasks, including character recognition
[1], object recognition [8], semantic segmentation [13], and human pose recognition [12].
One of the fundamental problems with random forests is noise robustness. Random
forests are believed to be robust to noises contained in training samples thanks to their
∗ Principal

corresponding author
author
Email addresses: akisato@ieee.org (Akisato Kimura), hf@cs.chubu.ac.jp (Hironobu Fujiyoshi)

∗∗ Corresponding

Preprint submitted to Pattern Recognition

October 31, 2017

Figure 1: Noise in test samples causes serious damage to the estimation of random forests, since leaf
nodes are sometimes far from those for clean samples.

ensemble properties. However, they do not work well when training samples are clean but
test samples are contaminated by noises. Figure 1 shows an example where we consider a
regression forest with 4 decision trees for 10-dimension features, and several dimensions
have been corrupted by noises (filled with green). Such noise-corrupted samples cause
unexpected decisions in nodes (green nodes in Figure 1), and the leaf nodes where the
sample reached are different or sometimes completely unlike those for clean samples,
which results in large estimation errors. One possible solution is to remove noises from
test samples by applying denoising autoencoders [9] to test samples. Zhang and Yan
[18] discussed two types of prediction errors, bias and variance, in regression forests, and
proposed a method for estimating prediction biases that are more difficult to remove
than prediction variances. Also, several previous researches try to detect noise-corrupted
test samples as outliers [7, 14]. However, those strategies might not work well for very
large or bursty noises.
A key insight we are focusing on for managing this issue is that each leaf in a decision
tree stores an estimation (e.g. a class histogram for a classification forest and a target
value for a regression forest) and a decision tree returns the same estimation result for
all the samples felled into the same leaf node. This readily implies that we can reproduce
the same estimation results as those for noiseless samples once we can fix wrong decisions
in nodes caused by noises to correct ones. Recovering noiseless samples from noisy ones
remains difficult even if we fully exploit various techniques brought by recent progress on
deep learning. Meanwhile, detecting nodes with incorrect decisions is much easier than
those approaches.
This paper proposes a novel method for boosting the resistance of random forests
to noises in test samples by effectively incorporating the above insight. We employ
binary indicator vectors that have the same dimension as the number of leaf nodes in
the forest and that indicate leaf nodes where the input sample has arrived. Figure
2

Figure 2: The proposed method eases the negative effects caused by noises by introducing autoencoders.

2 bottom shows an examples of a binary indicator vector. We can see that a binary
indicator vector for an input sample encodes the trajectory of the sample from the root
to a leaf node in each decision tree. We also see that from the nature of decision trees
each leaf node in the forest corresponds to a part of the feature space, and thus binary
indicator vectors should have a strong correlation. As shown in Figure 2, our proposed
method called denoising random forests employs denoising autoencoders to detect and
correct noise-corrupted decision nodes. A denoising autoencoder is trained with indicator
vectors produced from clean and noise-contaminated training samples, which enables us
to detect nodes where incorrect decisions are made. If each element of binary indicating
vectors can be assumed to be generated from a Bernoulli distribution independently,
clean binary indicating vectors from clean training samples cannot be recovered even with
denoising autoencoders. However, as described above, binary indicating vectors have a
strong correlation, and thus clean indicating vectors can be recovered with denoising
autoencoders. Once we can detect such nodes, multiple traversal paths, namely the left
and right child nodes, with respect to the nodes can then be considered for the estimation.
2. Regression Forests
Our proposed method can be applied to any type of decision forests, however, we
here concentrate on the use of regression forests [5], since they are more sensitive to
noises than any other types of forests. In the following, we first describe a procedure of
regression forests.
3

It begins by creating T subsets X1 , X2 , . . . , XT of training samples X = {(x1 , y1 ), (x2 , y2 ), . . . , (xM , yM )},
where xm = (xm1 , . . . , xmD )> ∈ RD and ym ∈ R are a feature vector and the target value
of the m-th sample, respectively. Random forests usually adopt bootstrap sampling to
create subsets, and thus subsets X1 , X2 , . . . , XT might share several samples. Next, the
t-th decision tree Tt for regression is built from the t-th subset Xt as training samples.
Each node Ntn of a tree Tt selects a feature dimension dtn and a threshold θtn that maximizes the following objective function s(Stn , dtn , θtn ), depending on the index set Stn of
samples that arrive at the n-th node Ntn , the selected dimension dtn and the threshold
θtn :
#
"
o2
X
X
X n
(i)
2
ym − ȳ(Stn (dtn , θtn ))
,
s(Stn , dtn , θtn ) =
(ym − ȳ(Stn )) −
m∈Stn
(L)
Stn (d, θ)
(R)
Stn (d, θ)

i=L,R

m∈Stn

= {m ∈ Stn |xmd ≤ θ},
= {m ∈ Stn |xmd > θ},

where ȳ(S) is the average target value y across all the samples in the set S. Then, all
(R)
(L)
the samples in Stn are divided into the left and right child nodes Ntn and Ntn whose
(L)
(R)
sample sets are Stn (dtn , θtn ) and Stn (dtn , θtn ), respectively. If the node Ntn reaches a
pre-defined maximum depth, a target estimate ŷtn for samples that arrive at the node
Ntn is computed by
!
!
X
X
ŷtn =
ym /
1
m∈Stn

m∈Stn

In the testing stage, each decision tree Tt receives a test sample xtest , transfers it
to the leaf node according to the splitting functions s(·) of nodes, and returns a target
estimate ŷt stored in the leaf node. The final output ŷ is the average over the outputs
ŷ1 (xtest ), . . . , ŷT (xtest ) obtained from a test sample xtest at the trees in the forest, as
follows:
ŷ =

T
X

ŷt (xtest )/T

t=1

As described in the introduction and Figure 1, noises contained in test samples cause
undesirable decisions in nodes, which results in large regression errors. We empirically
evaluated regression errors with respect to the amount of noises in test samples, using a
public dataset named Concrete Compressive Strength dataset [17] in the UCI Machine
Learning Repository. In this experiment, we used 25 trees with depth of 4 and each node
of trees in the forest checked a single dimension for splitting samples. Table 1 gives the
result. This indicates that noises brought a significant impact on regression errors and
this negative impact rapidly increased as the noises increase.
3. Proposed method
We propose a novel method called denoising random forests that are robust to noises
contained in test samples.
4

Table 1: Noises in test samples brought a significant impact on regression errors and this negative impact
increased rapidly as the noises increase (see Section 2 for the detail).
S/N [%]
0
12.5
25
37.5
50
62.5
75
Error [%]
15.2 16.3 22.4 23.7 26.9 29.1 30.9

3.1. Main idea
Before describing the framework of the proposed method, we introduce the main idea
behind the proposed method and present a preliminary experimental result that supports
our idea.
Our main idea originates from binary indicator vectors zP∈ BN that have the same
T
dimension as the number of leaf nodes in the forest, N = t=1 Nt , and that indicate
leaf nodes where the input sample arrived (see Figure 2). We here note that each leaf
node in a decision tree directly corresponds to a region in the feature space, and thus a
binary indicator vector zt ∈ BNt obtained from a single decision tree Tt roughly encodes
the position of a given feature x in the feature space. This readily implies that the
representation of the feature space by binary indicator vectors obtained from whole the
forest is becoming redundant and the binary indicator vector has a strong correlation,
if there are a sufficiently large number of trees in the forest and each tree is sufficiently
deep.
To confirm the above assumption, we performed a preliminary experiment to compute
cross correlations among decision trees. As a measure for evaluating the correlations, we
used cross entropy that can be computed from an aggregation of binary indicator vectors.
More specifically, we follow the scheme below (see also Figure 3): First, the entropy Ht (S)
of the t-th tree Tt for a given sample set S is calculated as follows:
Ht (S) = −

Nt
X

P (Stn (S); S) log P (Stn (S); S),

n=1

P (Stn (S); S) = |Stn (S)|/|S|,
where Nt is the number of leaf nodes in the t-th tree Tt and Stn (S) is a subset of S whose
samples reach the n-th leaf node Nn in the t-th tree Tt . We can see that a small Ht (S)
means that the outputs of the t-th tree Tt are highly biased for samples in the set S.
The cross entropy Ct,t0 (S) between the t-th and t0 -th trees Tt and Tt0 for a given sample
set S and its average Ct (S) for the t-th tree Tt over all the other trees can be computed
as follows:
Nt
1 X
Ht0 (Stn (S)),
Nt n=1
1 X
Ct (S) =
Ct,t0 (S)
T −1 0

Ct,t0 (S) =

t ,t

We can see that a small Ct,t0 (S) means that samples Stn (S) felled into a specific leaf
node Ntn in the tree Tt fall into only a few nodes in the tree Tt0 and thus the outputs of
two trees Tt and Tt0 are highly correlated with each other.
The cross entropy Ct,t0 (S) is influenced by the ratio of overlapping samples used for
training the t-th and t0 -th trees, since random forests usually adopt bootstrap sampling
5

Figure 3: Computing cross entropy of trees in the forest (See Section 3.1 for the detail)

to generate subsets of training samples, as shown in Section 2. Figure 4 shows normalized
mean cross entropy Ct (S) averaged over all the trees in the forest when controlling the
ratio of overlapping training samples for bootstrap sampling. Almost all the experimental
settings were the same as Section 2, and we prepared another subset of samples for
computing cross entropy, which are different from the training samples. This result
indicates that the increase in the ratio contributed greatly to the decrease in the cross
entropy among trees. We do not usually control the ratio of overlapping training samples
for bootstrap sampling when training random forests, namely, all the training samples are
used for bootstrap sampling in general. Thus, the experimental result shown in Figure
4 supports our assumption that trees in the forest are correlated with each other.
The other important characteristic of binary indicator vectors is that each vector
represents a traversal path of decision trees. In other words, a target estimate ŷ is
uniquely determined by a binary indicator vector z.
ŷ = f (z) = f (g(x)).

(1)

This means that if indicator vectors obtained from noise-free input features can somehow
be recovered, appropriate traversal paths can also be recovered and then the estimation
6

Figure 4: Cross entropy for varying ratios of overlapping samples

performance can be improved without the need for any explicit noise reduction techniques
for input samples.
3.2. Framework
Figure 5 shows an overview of our proposed method called denoising random forests.
We again note that we assume that all the training samples are clean but test samples
might be corrupted by noises.
First in the training stage, a regression forest is trained from a given set of training
samples. See Section 2 for the procedure of training regression forests. Next, the mean
cross entropy Ct (S) defined in Section 3.1 is computed for each tree, and trees with low
entropy scores are selected to form a refined regression forest. In general, random forests
are expected to have high-entropy trees for improving generalization performances. On
the other hand, this step for selecting low-entropy trees is significant to improve the
noise robustness. We will show the effectiveness of this step experimentally in Section
4.3. Binary indicator vectors each of which represents a traversal path of a training
sample are then computed from clean and noisy training samples to train denoising
autoencoders. As with usual denoising autoencoders, we can generate noisy training
samples from clean training samples.
In the testing stage, a binary indicator vector is first extracted from a given test sample with the trained regression forest, to be fed into the trained denoising autoencoder.
We can detect nodes that produce incorrect decisions caused by noises from the denoising autoencoder. The details how to detect noise-corrupted nodes will be described in
7

Figure 5: Flow of proposed method

Figure 6: Computing indicator vectors considering inter-node distances. See Section 3.3 for the detail.

Section 3.3. We can estimate a possibly correct traversal path from the detected nodes.
Once we can estimate a corrected traversal path, both the original and recovered traversal paths can then be considered for the regression. The details will be described in
Section 3.4.
3.3. Recovering traversal paths
A denoising autoencoder is trained with indicator vectors produced from clean and
noisy samples, where we assume that all the training samples are noiseless. In this paper,
we used a simple architecture for a denoising autoencoder that consists of an input layer,
a bottleneck layer and an output layer, and the number of units for the bottleneck layer
is half of the number of units in the input and output layers (i.e. the number of leaf nodes
in the forest). A binary indicator vector z = g(x) is highly sparse especially with deep
trees, which makes it difficult to train a denoising autoencoder. Therefore, we develop
another type of indicator vector z̃ = g̃(x) that encodes inter-node distances. As shown
in Figure 6, each element z̃n of the new indicator vector z̃ that corresponds to the leaf
8

Figure 7: Recovering traversal paths from leaves to root. See Section 3.3 for the detail.

node Nn is 1 if the node N (x) where the test sample x arrives at the node Nn , and
otherwise an element z̃n can be computed by the inverse of distance from the leaf node
N (x) where the test sample x arrives.

1
if Nn = N (x)
z̃n =
(2)
(d(Nn , N (x))/2)−1 otherwise
We can improve the performance of recovering traversal paths by preparing denoising
autoencoders not only for the leaf depth but also for intermediate node depths. By doing
this, we can identify any nodes in any layers with possibly incorrect decisions.
In the testing stage, traversal paths are recovered with the trained denoising autoencoder from indicator vectors that might be corrupted by noises, by following the steps
below (see also Figure 7): A proposed indicator vector z̃ = g̃(x) is first computed from a
test sample x, and is passed through the trained autoencoder to obtain a refined indicator vector ẑ. The refined indicator vector is then binarized so that only one element per
tree has a positive value, and a refined traversal path can then be recovered from this
binarized indicator vector. Nodes with incorrect decisions can be identified by comparing the differences between the original and refined traversal paths. When introducing
multiple autoencoders depth-wise, the recovery process starts from the leaf depth and
moves up to shallower depths, as shown in Figure 7.

9

Figure 8: Regression forest considering multiple paths

3.4. Estimation considering multiple paths
If we assume that we can perfectly recover the true traversal paths z with denoising autoencoders, we can simply replace the original (possibly noise-corrupted) traversal
paths with a refined one. However, denoising autoencoders may sometimes fail and undesirable traversal paths may recover. Instead, we propose an estimation process that
considers multiple, namely the original and refined, traversal paths. Figure 8 shows an
outline of the proposed multiple path estimation. We have already obtained nodes (filled
with green in Figure 8) that might yield incorrect decisions by employing denoising autoencoders (see Section 3.3). Multiple traversal paths are generated from the obtained
nodes with incorrect decisions, and an estimation result can be obtained from each traversal path. The final estimation result ŷ is a weighted sum of estimation results each of
which is obtained from an individual traversal path.
ŷ =

T X
X

wp ŷtnp /T,

t=1 p∈P

wp = 2−kp
where P is a set of all the traversal paths generated by the above procedure, np is an
index of a leaf node of the traversal path p, wp is a weight of the traversal path p and kp
is the number of nodes with incorrect decisions in the traversal path p.
4. Evaluation Experiments
We performed several experiments to evaluate the effectiveness of our proposed method.
10

Figure 9: Denoising performance, see Section 4.1 for the detail.

We used five public datasets in the UCI Machine Learning Repository, namely Physicochemical Properties of Protein Tertiary Structure (abbr. Protein), Concrete Compressive Strength (Concrete) [17], Geographical Origin of Music (Music) [19], Energy Efficiency (Energy) [15], and Airfoil Self-Noise (Airfoil) [3]. We created noisy test samples
by intentionally injecting noises into the original features: meanwhile we used the original data for model (namely, regression forests and denoising autoencoders) training.
Although several types of noises can be considered, we here replaced several elements of
the samples with the average value across all the samples. All the parameters of the decision forests were optimized to obtain the best regression performance for the baseline.
More specifically, the number and depth of trees for each dataset were set as follows:
Protein: 40 trees with depth 4, Concrete: 15 trees with depth 4, Music: 35 trees with
depth 4, Energy: 20 trees with depth 4, Airfoil: 20 trees with depth 4.
4.1. Denoising performances
First, we evaluated the performance of our noise correction with denoising autoencoders described in Section 3.3. As measures for evaluation, we used (1) the precision
rate, namely the ratio of samples from which the correct indicator vectors could be recovered, and (2) the cross entropy between the ground-truth and recovered indicator
vectors. We have to note that we adopt a standard definition of cross entropy for this
evaluation, and it is different from that shown in Section 3.1. The precision rate is rather
11

Figure 10: Regression performances for (top left) Protein dataset, (top right) Concrete (yellow) and
Music (blue) datasets, (bottom) Energy (green) and Airfoil (brown) datasets, see Section 4.2 for the
detail.

conservative since it gains only if an estimated indicator vector is strictly equal to the
ground-truth. Meanwhile, the cross entropy enables us to measure a detailed difference
between an estimated and ground-truth indicator vector.
Fig. 9 shows the results, which indicate that the denoising performance of the proposed method improved (lower cross entropy scores: dashed lines and higher precision
rates: solid lines) as the number of overlapping samples in the training subsets increased.
We can also see that the proposed method recovered an average of 75-90% of the true
indicator vectors.
4.2. Regression performances
Next, we evaluated the regression performances of the proposed method. As a measure for evaluations, we used the L1 -distance normalized by the ground-truth. We compared the proposed method with (1) a standard regression forest with clean test samples
as an oracle, (2) a standard regression forest with noisy test samples as a baseline, and
(3) a multi-path regression forest with noisy test samples and known ground-truth noise
patterns. Figure 10 show the results. The naive regression forest provided the best regression performances if the test samples were noise free (dotted lines). However, the
performance worsened for the noisy test samples (dashed lines). The multi-path regression forest (dotted and dashed lines) recovered the regression performance if we knew the
12

Figure 11: Effectiveness of the proposed multiple path estimation

true noise patterns, however in real-world applications we cannot obtain such groundtruth noise patterns. On the other hand, the proposed method (solid lines) exhibited
regression performance that was better than the naive regression forest and comparable
to that of the multi-path regression forest with true noise patterns, even though we did
not know the true noise patterns.
As shown in Figure 9, denoising autoencoders cannot perfectly recover the true traversal paths. This implies that we should not completely rely on refined traversal paths and
we should adopt multiple path estimation proposed in Section 3.4. To confirm the above
discussion, we perform another experiment for comparing (1) the regression forest with
only refined traversal paths and (2) the proposed method utilizing multiple paths. Figure
11 shows the result for Protein dataset, where solid and dashed lines correspond to the
regression forest with only refined traversal paths and the proposed method, respectively.
As you can see in this figure, this experimental result supports our suggestion.
You may think that denoising autoencoders should be applied to input features,
not traversal patterns. We here answer this concern by comparing the regression performances of denoising autoencoders applying to test features (baseline) and indicator
vectors (proposed). Figure 12 show the experimental results. We confirmed that our
proposed method that applies denoising autoencoders to correcting traversal paths outperformed the method that applied denoising autoencoders to removing noises from input
features for many datasets, although the gain was not so large (1.6% on average over
13

Figure 12: Effectiveness of the proposed method applying denoising autoencoders to indicating vectors,
for (left) Concrete and Music datasets, and (right) Airfoil and Energy datasets.

Table 2: Effect of regression-tree selection by cross entropy
Concrete
Music
Energy
Airfoil
Average

Cross entropy
w/ selection
w/o selection
0.64
0.82
0.62
0.74
0.68
0.91
0.55
0.66
0.62
0.78

Noise detection rate[%]
w/ selection
w/o selection
71.2
68.1
72.9
71.4
67.2
63.1
68.9
67.7
70.0
67.6

Regression error[%]
w/ selection
w/o selection
20.4
22..4
14.2
15.7
9.7
12.9
14.9
16.3
14.8
16.8

all the datasets). In particular, we had about 2.5 points improvement for the Energy
dataset when the subset overlap ratio is 60%.
4.3. Effect of tree selection by cross entropy
Finally, we evaluated the effectiveness of selecting trees on the basis of cross entropy.
As measures for evaluation, we used the precision rate and the cross entropy and used in
Section 4.1 for evaluating noise correction performances and the normalized L1 -distance
used in Section 4.2 for evaluating regression performances. Table 2 shows the result. This
indicates that the proposed tree selection approach made it easier to find and correct noise
patterns with denoising autoencoders. Some may suppose that the fact that proposed
tree selection approach leaves only mutually correlated trees may causes over-fitting.
However, the experimental results shows that the proposed method effectively improved
the regression performance.
5. Conclusion
In this paper, we proposed a novel method for boosting the resistance of random
forests to noises in test samples by effectively incorporating denoising autoencoders. We
employed indicator vectors each of which indicates leaf nodes where an input sample
has arrived. Our proposed method called denoising random forests employed denoising
autoencoders to detect and correct noise-corrupted decision nodes from indicator vectors.
Estimation considering multiples traversal paths eased the adversarial effects caused by
incorrect estimation of denoising autoencoders. Various types of experimental results
demonstrated the effectiveness of the proposed method. Promising future work includes
14

(1) the improvement of recovering true traversal paths by introducing emerging deep
learning technologies and (2) the extension of the proposed method to other machine
learning tasks such classification and density estimation.
[1] Amit, Y., Geman, D., 1997. Shape Quantization and Recognition with Randomized Trees. Neural
Computation 9 (7), 1545–1588.
[2] Breiman, L., 2001. Random forests. Machine Learning 45 (1), 5–32.
[3] Brooks, T. F., Pope, S., Marcolini, M. A., 1989. Airfoil Self-Noise and Prediction. NASA Reference
Publication 1218, 1–142.
URL http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19890016302.pdf
[4] Caruana, R., Niculescu-Mizil, A., 2006. An empirical comparison of supervised learning algorithms.
In: Proceedings of the 23th International Conference on Machine Learning. pp. 161–168.
URL http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1143844.1143865
[5] Criminisi, A., 2011. Decision Forests: A Unified Framework for Classification, Regression, Density Estimation, Manifold Learning and Semi-Supervised Learning. Foundations and Trends® in
Computer Graphics and Vision 7 (2-3), 81–227.
[6] Del Río, S., López, V., Benítez, J. M., Herrera, F., 2014. On the use of MapReduce for imbalanced
big data using Random Forest. Information Sciences 285 (1), 112–137.
[7] Fawagreh, K., Gaber, M. M., Elyan, E., 2015. An outlier detection-based tree selection approach
to extreme pruning of random forests. CoRR abs/1503.05187.
URL http://arxiv.org/abs/1503.05187
[8] Gall, J., Yao, A., Razavi, N., Van Gool, L., Lempitsky, V., 2011. Hough forests for object detection,
tracking, and action recognition. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence
33 (11), 2188–2202.
[9] Hinton, G. E., Salakhutdinov, R. R., 2006. Reducing the Dimensionality of Data with Neural
Networks\r. Science 313 (5786), 504–507.
[10] Li, B., Chen, X., Li, M. J., Huang, J. Z., Feng, S., 2012. Scalable random forests for massive data.
In: Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence
and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics). Vol. 7301 LNAI. pp. 135–146.
[11] Sharp, T., 2008. Implementing decision trees and forests on a gpu. In: Proc. European Conference
on Computer Vision, Marseille, France. pp. 595–608.
[12] Shotton, J., Fitzgibbon, A., Cook, M., Sharp, T., Finocchio, M., Moore, R., Kipman, A., Blake, A.,
2013. Real-time human pose recognition in parts from single depth images. Studies in Computational
Intelligence 411, 119–135.
[13] Shotton, J., Johnson, M., Cipolla, R., 2008. Semantic texton forests for image categorization and
segmentation. In: 26th IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, CVPR.
[14] Ting, K. M., Liu, F. T., Zhou, Z.-H., 2008. Isolation forest. IEEE International Conference on Data
Mining 00, 413–422.
[15] Tsanas, A., Xifara, A., 2012. Accurate quantitative estimation of energy performance of residential
buildings using statistical machine learning tools. Energy and Buildings 49, 560–567.
[16] Wakayama, R., Murata, R., Kimura, A., Yamashita, T., Yamauchi, Y., Fujiyoshi, H., 2015. Distributed forests for MapReduce-based machine learning. In: Proceedings - 3rd IAPR Asian Conference on Pattern Recognition, ACPR 2015. pp. 276–280.
[17] Yeh, I.-C., 1998. Modeling of Strength of High-Performance Concrete Using Artificial Neural Networks. Journal of Civil Engineering 28 (12), 1797–1808.
URL http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0008884698001653
[18] Zhang, G., Lu, Y., 2012. Bias-corrected random forests in regression. Journal of Applied Statistics
39 (1), 151–160.
[19] Zhou, F., Claire, Q., King, R. D., 2014. Predicting the Geographical Origin of Music. In: 2014
IEEE International Conference on Data Mining. pp. 1115–1120.

15

