Abstract
AbstractConventionally, random forests are built from “greedy” decision trees which each consider only one split at a time during their construction. The sub-optimality of greedy implementation has been well-known, yet mainstream adoption of more sophisticated tree building algorithms has been lacking. We examine under what circumstances an implementation of less greedy decision trees actually yields outperformance. To this end, a “stepwise lookahead” variation of the random forest algorithm is presented for its ability to better uncover binary feature interdependencies. In contrast to the greedy approach, the decision trees included in this random forest algorithm, each simultaneously consider three split nodes in tiers of depth two. It is demonstrated on synthetic data and financial price time series that the lookahead version significantly outperforms the greedy one when (a) certain non-linear relationships between feature-pairs are present and (b) if the signal-to-noise ratio is particularly low. A long-short trading strategy for copper futures is then backtested by training both greedy and stepwise lookahead random forests to predict the signs of daily price returns. The resulting superior performance of the lookahead algorithm is at least partially explained by the presence of “XOR-like” relationships between long-term and short-term technical indicators. More generally, across all examined datasets, when no such relationships between features are present, performance across random forests is similar. Given its enhanced ability to understand the feature-interdependencies present in complex systems, this lookahead variation is a useful extension to the toolkit of data scientists, in particular for financial machine learning, where conditions (a) and (b) are typically met.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference40 articles.
1. Breiman, L. Random forests. Mach. Learn. 45(1), 5–32 (2001).
2. Fernández-Delgado, M., Cernadas, E., Barro, S. & Amorim, D. Do we need hundreds of classifiers to solve real world classification problems? J. Mach. Learn. Res. 15(1), 3133–3181 (2014).
3. Biau, G. & Scornet, E. A random forest guided tour. Test 25(2), 197–227 (2016).
4. Lundberg, S. M. et al. From local explanations to global understanding with explainable AI for trees. Nat. Mach. Intell. 2(1), 2522–5839 (2020).
5. Breiman, L., Friedman, J., Stone, C. J. & Olshen, R. A. Classification and Regression Trees (CRC Press, 1984).
Cited by
3 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献