Random Forest (RF) is an ensemble supervised machine learning 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 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 empiricallthat ensembles tend to yield better results when there is a significant diversity among the constituent models, the objective of this paper is twofold. First, it investigates how data clustering (a well known diversity technique) can be applied to identify groups of similar decision trees in an RF in order to eliminate redundant trees by selecting a representative from each group (cluster). Second, these likely diverse representatives are then used to produce an extension of RF termed CLUB-DRF that is much smaller in size than RF, and yet performs at least as good as RF, and mostly exhibits higher performance in terms of accuracy. The latter refers to a known technique called ensemble pruning. Experimental results on 15 real datasets from the UCI repository prove the superiority of our proposed extension over the traditional RF. Most of our experiments achieved at least 95 or above pruning level while retaining or outperforming the RF accuracy.
Because of the vital role diversity plays on the performance of ensembles, it had received a lot of attention from the research community. G. @cite_20 summarized the work done to date in this domain from two main perspectives. The first is a review of the various attempts that were made to provide a formal foundation of diversity. The second, which is more relevant to this paper, is a survey of the various techniques to produce diverse ensembles. For the latter, two types of diversity methods were identified: implicit and explicit. While implicit methods tend to use randomness to generate diverse trajectories in the hypothesis space, explicit methods, on the other hand, choose different paths in the space deterministically. In light of these definitions, bagging and boosting in the previous section are classified as implicit and explicit respectively.
@cite_20
2167055186
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.