On PAC-Bayesian Bounds for Random Forests
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
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.
Key facts. Cited by 10 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 23 Oct 2018.
Builds on
No reference list yet.
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2021: 5; 2022: 1; 2023: 1; 2024: 1; 2025: 1; 2026: 1.
10 papers.
- 2021Learning Stochastic Majority Votes by Minimizing a PAC-Bayes Generalization Boundcited by 16
- 2021A PAC-Bayes Analysis of Adversarial Robustnesscited by 13
- 2021Chebyshev-Cantelli PAC-Bayes-Bennett Inequality for the Weighted Majority Votecited by 13
- 2021Self-Bounding Majority Vote Learning Algorithms by the Direct Minimization of a Tight PAC-Bayesian C-Boundcited by 8
- 2022On Margins and Generalisation for Voting Classifierscited by 7
- 2025WatchGuardian: Enabling User-Defined Personalized Just-in-Time Intervention on Smartwatchcited by 4
- 2021Multi-class Probabilistic Bounds for Self-learningcited by 3
- 2023On the Trade-off between the Number of Nodes and the Number of Trees in a Random Forestcited by 0
- 2024On Uniform, Bayesian, and PAC-Bayesian Deep Ensemblescited by 0
- 2026Minimax Rates and Spectral Distillation for Tree Ensemblescited by 0
- 2026Minimax Rates and Spectral Distillation for Tree Ensembles12 May 2026
- 2025WatchGuardian: Enabling User-Defined Personalized Just-in-Time Intervention on Smartwatch9 Feb 2025
- 2024On Uniform, Bayesian, and PAC-Bayesian Deep Ensembles8 Jun 2024
- 2023On the Trade-off between the Number of Nodes and the Number of Trees in a Random Forest16 Dec 2023
- 2022On Margins and Generalisation for Voting Classifiers9 Jun 2022
- 2021Multi-class Probabilistic Bounds for Self-learning29 Sep 2021
- 2021Chebyshev-Cantelli PAC-Bayes-Bennett Inequality for the Weighted Majority Vote25 Jun 2021
- 2021Learning Stochastic Majority Votes by Minimizing a PAC-Bayes Generalization Bound23 Jun 2021
- 2021Self-Bounding Majority Vote Learning Algorithms by the Direct Minimization of a Tight PAC-Bayesian C-Bound28 Apr 2021
- 2021A PAC-Bayes Analysis of Adversarial Robustness19 Feb 2021