mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Randomization Can Reduce Both Bias and Variance: A Case Study in Random Forests

arXiv 2402.12668 ↗First posted 20 Feb 2024stat.ML cs.LGcited by 6

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

We study the often overlooked phenomenon, first noted in citebreiman2001random, that random forests appear to reduce bias compared to bagging. Motivated by an interesting paper by citementch2020randomization, where the authors explain the success of random forests in low signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) settings through regularization, we explore how random forests can capture patterns in the data that bagging ensembles fail to capture. We empirically demonstrate that in the presence of such patterns, random forests reduce bias along with variance and can increasingly outperform bagging ensembles when SNR is high. Our observations offer insights into the real-world success of random forests across a range of SNRs and enhance our understanding of the difference between random forests and bagging ensembles. Our investigations also yield practical insights into the importance of tuning mtry in random forests.

Key facts. Cited by 6 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 5 of its 35 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 20 Feb 2024.

Builds on

5 of 35 references.

References · 5

  1. 2015Explaining the Success of AdaBoost and Random Forests as Interpolating Classifierscited by 45
  2. 2019Randomization as Regularization: A Degrees of Freedom Explanation for Random Forest Successcited by 30
  3. 2017Extended Comparisons of Best Subset Selection, Forward Stepwise Selection, and the Lassocited by 16
  4. 2021Trees, Forests, Chickens, and Eggs: When and Why to Prune Trees in a Random Forestcited by 13
  5. 2020Getting Better from Worse: Augmented Bagging and a Cautionary Tale of Variable Importancecited by 10

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2024: 1; 2025: 4; 2026: 1.

6 papers.