Understanding Random Forests: From Theory to Practice
Open accessAbstract
Data analysis and machine learning have become an integrative part of the modern scientific methodology, offering automated procedures for the prediction of a phenomenon based on past observations, unraveling underlying patterns in data and providing insights about the problem. Yet, caution should avoid using machine learning as a black-box tool, but rather consider it as a methodology, with a rational thought process that is entirely dependent on the problem under study. In particular, the use of algorithms should ideally require a reasonable understanding of their mechanisms, properties and limitations, in order to better apprehend and interpret their results. Accordingly, the goal of this thesis is to provide an in-depth analysis of random forests, consistently calling into question each and every part of the algorithm, in order to shed new light on its learning capabilities, inner workings and interpretability. The first part of this work studies the induction of decision trees and the construction of ensembles of randomized trees, motivating their design and purpose whenever possible. Our contributions follow with an original complexity analysis of random forests, showing their good computational performance and scalability, along with an in-depth discussion of their implementation details, as contributed within Scikit-Learn. In the second part of this work, we analyse and discuss the interpretability of random forests in the eyes of variable importance measures. The core of our contributions rests in the theoretical characterization of the Mean Decrease of Impurity variable importance measure, from which we prove and derive some of its properties in the case of multiway totally randomized trees and in asymptotic conditions. In consequence of this work, our analysis demonstrates that variable importances [...].
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Machine learning or deep learning models such as Random Forest, LightGBM, LSTM, and BERT are used as baselines.
“Given that classification models can be used for news sentiment prediction, machine learning or deep learning models such as Random Forest[30], LightGBM[17], LSTM[13], and BERT[7] are also used as baselines.”
From Large Language Model Agent in Financial Trading: A Survey (2026) · cites this paper as [30]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 14
- mation Theory, IEEE Transactions on, 20(4):472–479, 1974.
- W. G. Touw, J. R. Bayjanov, L. Overmars, L. Backus, J. Boekhorst, M. Wels, and S. A. van Hijum. Data mining in the life sciences with random forest: a walk in the park or lost in the jungle? Brief- ings in bioinformatics, 14(3):315–326, 2013.
- G. Tsoumakas and I. Katakis. Multi-label classification: An overview. International Journal of Data Warehousing and Mining (IJDWM), 3(3): 1–13, 2007.
- E. Tuv, A. Borisov, and K. Torkkola. Feature selection using ensemble based ranking against artificial contrasts. In Neural Networks, 2006. IJCNN'06. International Joint Conference on, pages 2181–2186. IEEE, 2006.
- E. Tuv, A. Borisov, G. Runger, and K. Torkkola. Feature selection with ensembles, artificial variables, and redundancy elimination. The Journal of Machine Learning Research, 10:1341–1366, 2009.
- S. Van der Walt, S. C. Colbert, and G. Varoquaux. The NumPy array: a structure for efficient numerical computation. CiSE, 13(2):22–30, 2011.
- L. A. Wehenkel. Automatic learning techniques in power systems. Num- ber 429. Springer, 1998.
- A. P. White and W. Z. Liu. Technical note: Bias in information-based measures in decision tree induction. Machine Learning, 15(3):321– 329, 1994.
- D. H. Wolpert and W. G. Macready. An efficient method to estimate bagging's generalization error. Machine Learning, 35(1):41–55, 1999.
- Y. Yuan and M. J. Shaw. Induction of fuzzy decision trees. Fuzzy Sets and systems, 69(2):125–139, 1995.
- D. Zhang, M. M. Islam, and G. Lu. A review on automatic image annotation techniques. Pattern Recognition, 45(1):346–362, 2012.
- G. Zhao. A new perspective on classification. PhD thesis, Utah State University, Department of Mathematics and Statistics, 2000.
- Z.-H. Zhou. Ensemble methods: foundations and algorithms. CRC Press, 2012.
- M. Zinkevich, M. Weimer, A. Smola, and L. Li. Parallelized stochastic gradient descent. In J. Lafferty, C. K. I. Williams, J. Shawe-Taylor, R. Zemel, and A. Culotta, editors, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 23, pages 2595–2603, 2010.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Large Language Model Agent in Financial Trading: A Survey
Ding, H., Li, Y., Wang, J., Chen, H., Guo, D., & Zhang, Y. (2026) · Proceedings of the 2026 9th International Conference on Computers in Management and Business · doi:10.1145/3802463.3802475 · Cited by 10 · see citing works
- Authors
- Louppe, G.
- Affiliations
- University of Liège (BE)
- Corresponding author
- Louppe, Gilles
- ORCID
- Louppe, Gilles
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2014
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 1407.7502
- OpenAlex
- W2124833832
- Cited by
- 693
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 8 · 2025: 74 · 2024: 108 · 2023: 88 · 2022: 69 · 2021: 94 · 2020: 106 · 2019: 69 · 2018: 45 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 9
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- Open Repository and Bibliography (University of Liège) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Inference
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Data Mining Algorithms and Applications
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning and Data Classification
- Keywords
- random forest, decision tree, ensemble learning, variable importance measures, interpretability, computational complexity, scalability, scikit-learn, asymptotic analysis, black-box algorithms
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review