Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userManifold Oblique Random Forests: Towards Closing the Gap on Convolutional Deep Networks
184
0
0.0
(
0
)
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
Decision forests (Forests), in particular random forests and gradient boosting trees, have demonstrated state-of-the-art accuracy compared to other methods in many supervised learning scenarios. In particular, Forests dominate other methods in tabular data, that is, when the feature space is unstructured, so that the signal is invariant to a permutation of the feature indices. However, in structured data lying on a manifold (such as images, text, and speech) deep networks (Networks), specifically convolutional deep networks (ConvNets), tend to outperform Forests. We conjecture that at least part of the reason for this is that the input to Networks is not simply the feature magnitudes, but also their indices. In contrast, naive Forest implementations fail to explicitly consider feature indices. A recently proposed Forest approach demonstrates that Forests, for each node, implicitly sample a random matrix from some specific distribution. These Forests, like some classes of Networks, learn by partitioning the feature space into convex polytopes corresponding to linear functions. We build on that approach and show that one can choose distributions in a manifold-aware fashion to incorporate feature locality. We demonstrate the empirical performance on data whose features live on three different manifolds: a torus, images, and time-series. Moreover, we demonstrate its strength in multivariate simulated settings and also show superiority in predicting surgical outcome in epilepsy patients and predicting movement direction from raw stereotactic EEG data from non-motor brain regions. In all simulations and real data, Manifold Oblique Random Forest (MORF) algorithm outperforms approaches that ignore feature space structure and challenges the performance of ConvNets. Moreover, MORF runs fast and maintains interpretability and theoretical justification.
rate research
Read More
Existing guarantees in terms of rigorous upper bounds on the generalization error for the original random forest algorithm, one of the most frequently used machine learning methods, are unsatisfying. We discuss and evaluate various PAC-Bayesian approaches to derive such bounds. The bounds do not require additional hold-out data, because the out-of-bag samples from the bagging in the training process can be exploited. A random forest predicts by taking a majority vote of an ensemble of decision trees. The first approach is to bound the error of the vote by twice the error of the corresponding Gibbs classifier (classifying with a single member of the ensemble selected at random). However, this approach does not take into account the effect of averaging out of errors of individual classifiers when taking the majority vote. This effect provides a significant boost in performance when the errors are independent or negatively correlated, but when the correlations are strong the advantage from taking the majority vote is small. The second approach based on PAC-Bayesian C-bounds takes dependencies between ensemble members into account, but it requires estimating correlations between the errors of the individual classifiers. When the correlations are high or the estimation is poor, the bounds degrade. In our experiments, we compute generalization bounds for random forests on various benchmark data sets. Because the individual decision trees already perform well, their predictions are highly correlated and the C-bounds do not lead to satisfactory results. For the same reason, the bounds based on the analysis of Gibbs classifiers are typically superior and often reasonably tight. Bounds based on a validation set coming at the cost of a smaller training set gave better performance guarantees, but worse performance in most experiments.
Random forests (RF) and deep networks (DN) are two of the most popular machine learning methods in the current scientific literature and yield differing levels of performance on different data modalities. We wish to further explore and establish the conditions and domains in which each approach excels, particularly in the context of sample size and feature dimension. To address these issues, we tested the performance of these approaches across tabular, image, and audio settings using varying model parameters and architectures. Our focus is on datasets with at most 10,000 samples, which represent a large fraction of scientific and biomedical datasets. In general, we found RF to excel at tabular and structured data (image and audio) with small sample sizes, whereas DN performed better on structured data with larger sample sizes. Although we plan to continue updating this technical report in the coming months, we believe the current preliminary results may be of interest to others.
Although the convolutional neural networks (CNNs) have become popular for various image processing and computer vision task recently, it remains a challenging problem to reduce the storage cost of the parameters for resource-limited platforms. In the previous studies, tensor decomposition (TD) has achieved promising compression performance by embedding the kernel of a convolutional layer into a low-rank subspace. However the employment of TD is naively on the kernel or its specified variants. Unlike the conventional approaches, this paper shows that the kernel can be embedded into more general or even random low-rank subspaces. We demonstrate this by compressing the convolutional layers via randomly-shuffled tensor decomposition (RsTD) for a standard classification task using CIFAR-10. In addition, we analyze how the spatial similarity of the training data influences the low-rank structure of the kernels. The experimental results show that the CNN can be significantly compressed even if the kernels are randomly shuffled. Furthermore, the RsTD-based method yields more stable classification accuracy than the conventional TD-based methods in a large range of compression ratios.
Reliable 4D aircraft trajectory prediction, whether in a real-time setting or for analysis of counterfactuals, is important to the efficiency of the aviation system. Toward this end, we first propose a highly generalizable efficient tree-based matching algorithm to construct image-like feature maps from high-fidelity meteorological datasets - wind, temperature and convective weather. We then model the track points on trajectories as conditional Gaussian mixtures with parameters to be learned from our proposed deep generative model, which is an end-to-end convolutional recurrent neural network that consists of a long short-term memory (LSTM) encoder network and a mixture density LSTM decoder network. The encoder network embeds last-filed flight plan information into fixed-size hidden state variables and feeds the decoder network, which further learns the spatiotemporal correlations from the historical flight tracks and outputs the parameters of Gaussian mixtures. Convolutional layers are integrated into the pipeline to learn representations from the high-dimension weather features. During the inference process, beam search, adaptive Kalman filter, and Rauch-Tung-Striebel smoother algorithms are used to prune the variance of generated trajectories.
In this paper, we propose a novel learning based method for automated segmentation of brain tumor in multimodal MRI images, which incorporates two sets of machine -learned and hand crafted features. Fully convolutional networks (FCN) forms the machine learned features and texton based features are considered as hand-crafted features. Random forest (RF) is used to classify the MRI image voxels into normal brain tissues and different parts of tumors, i.e. edema, necrosis and enhancing tumor. The method was evaluated on BRATS 2017 challenge dataset. The results show that the proposed method provides promising segmentations. The mean Dice overlap measure for automatic brain tumor segmentation against ground truth is 0.86, 0.78 and 0.66 for whole tumor, core and enhancing tumor, respectively.
suggested questions
Log in to be able to interact and post comments
comments
Fetching comments
Sign in to be able to follow your search criteria
