Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2015;110(512):1770-1784.
doi: 10.1080/01621459.2015.1036994. Epub 2015 Apr 16.

Reinforcement Learning Trees

Affiliations

Reinforcement Learning Trees

Ruoqing Zhu et al. J Am Stat Assoc. 2015.

Abstract

In this paper, we introduce a new type of tree-based method, reinforcement learning trees (RLT), which exhibits significantly improved performance over traditional methods such as random forests (Breiman, 2001) under high-dimensional settings. The innovations are three-fold. First, the new method implements reinforcement learning at each selection of a splitting variable during the tree construction processes. By splitting on the variable that brings the greatest future improvement in later splits, rather than choosing the one with largest marginal effect from the immediate split, the constructed tree utilizes the available samples in a more efficient way. Moreover, such an approach enables linear combination cuts at little extra computational cost. Second, we propose a variable muting procedure that progressively eliminates noise variables during the construction of each individual tree. The muting procedure also takes advantage of reinforcement learning and prevents noise variables from being considered in the search for splitting rules, so that towards terminal nodes, where the sample size is small, the splitting rules are still constructed from only strong variables. Last, we investigate asymptotic properties of the proposed method under basic assumptions and discuss rationale in general settings.

Keywords: Consistency; Error Bound; Random Forests; Reinforcement Learning; Trees.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Relative prediction errors on 10 machine learning datasets The relative performance in 10 machine learning datasets: (Boston housing, parkinson, sonar, white wine, red wine, parkinson-Oxford, ozone, concrete, breast cancer, and auto MPG). For each dataset, a random training sample of size 150 is used. RF-all represents the best performance among RF, RF-p, and RF-log p. Each gray line links the performance of the same dataset.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Comparing variable importance of Random Forests and RLT Black: Strong variables; Gray: Noise variables. P = 200, strong variables are located at 50, 100, 150 and 200.

References

    1. Amit Y, Geman D. Shape quantization and recognition with randomized trees. Neural Computing. 1997;9(7):1545–1588.
    1. Biau G. Analysis of a random forests model. Journal of Machine Learning Research. 2012;13:1063–1095.
    1. Biau G, Devroye L, Lugosi G. Consistency of random forests and other averaging classifiers. Journal of Machine Learning Research. 2008;9:2015–2033.
    1. Breiman L. Bagging Predictors. Machine Learning. 1996;24:123–140.
    1. Breiman L. Technical Report 577. Department of Statistics, University of California; Berkeley: 2000. Some infinity theory for predictor ensembles.