Random Forest (RF) is an ensemble classication technique that was developed by Breiman over a decade ago. Compared with other ensemble techniques, it has proved its accuracy and superiority. Many researchers, however, believe that there is still room for enhancing and improving its performance in terms of predictive accuracy. This explains why, over the past decade, there have been many extensions of RF where each extension employed a variety of techniques and strategies to improve certain aspect(s) of RF. Since it has been proven empirically that ensembles tend to yield better results when there is a signicant diversity among the constituent models, the objective of this paper is twofolds. First, it investigates how an unsupervised learning technique, namely, Local Outlier Factor (LOF) can be used to identify diverse trees in the RF. Second, trees with the highest LOF scores are then used to produce an extension of RF termed LOFB-DRF that is much smaller in size than RF, and yet performs at least as good as RF, but mostly exhibits higher performance in terms of accuracy. The latter refers to a known technique called ensemble pruning. Experimental results on 10 real datasets prove the superiority of our proposed extension over the traditional RF. Unprecedented pruning levels reaching as high as 99 have been achieved at the time of boosting the predictive accuracy of the ensemble. The notably high pruning level makes the technique a good candidate for real-time applications.
@cite_15: Ensemble approaches to classication and regression have attracted a great deal of interest in recent years. These methods can be shown both theoretically and empirically to outperform single predictors on a wide range of tasks. One of the elements required for accurate prediction when using an ensemble is recognised to be error ". However, the exact meaning of this concept is not clear from the literature, particularly for classication tasks. In this paper we rst review the varied attempts to provide a formal explanation of error diversity, including several heuristic and qualitative explanations in the literature. For completeness of discussion we include not only the classication literature but also some excerpts of the rather more mature regression literature, which we believe can still provide some insights. We proceed to survey the various techniques used for creating diverse ensembles, and categorise them, forming a preliminary taxonomy of diversity creation methods. As part of this taxonomy we introduce the idea of implicit and explicit diversity creation methods, and three dimensions along which these may be applied. Finally we propose some new directions that may prove fruitful in understanding classication error diversity.
@cite_23: An ensemble consists of a set of individually trained classifiers (such as neural networks or decision trees) whose predictions are combined when classifying novel instances. Previous research has shown that an ensemble is often more accurate than any of the single classifiers in the ensemble. Bagging (Breiman, 1996c) and Boosting (Freund & Schapire, 1996; Schapire, 1990) are two relatively new but popular methods for producing ensembles. In this paper we evaluate these methods on 23 data sets using both neural networks and decision trees as our classification algorithm. Our results clearly indicate a number of conclusions. First, while Bagging is almost always more accurate than a single classifier, it is sometimes much less accurate than Boosting. On the other hand, Boosting can create ensembles that are less accurate than a single classifier - especially when using neural networks. Analysis indicates that the performance of the Boosting methods is dependent on the characteristics of the data set being examined. In fact, further results show that Boosting ensembles may overfit noisy data sets, thus decreasing its performance. Finally, consistent with previous studies, our work suggests that most of the gain in an ensemble's performance comes in the first few classifiers combined; however, relatively large gains can be seen up to 25 classifiers when Boosting decision trees.
G. @cite_15 also categorized ensemble diversity techniques into three categories: starting point in hypothesis space, set of accessible hypotheses, and manipulation of training data. Methods in the first category use different starting points in the hypothesis space, therefore, influencing the convergence place within the space. Because of their poor performance of achieving diversity, such methods are used by many authors as a default benchmark for their own methods @cite_23 . Methods in the second category vary the set of hypotheses that are available and accessible by the ensemble. For different ensembles, these methods vary either the training data used or the architecture employed. In the third category, the methods alter the way space is traversed. Occupying any point in the search space, gives a particular hypothesis. The type of the ensemble obtained will be determined by how the space of the possible hypotheses is traversed.