df-dn-paper

Conceptual & empirical comparisons between decision forests & deep networks

https://github.com/neurodata/df-dn-paper

Science Score: 54.0%

This score indicates how likely this project is to be science-related based on various indicators:

  • CITATION.cff file
    Found CITATION.cff file
  • codemeta.json file
    Found codemeta.json file
  • .zenodo.json file
    Found .zenodo.json file
  • DOI references
  • Academic publication links
    Links to: arxiv.org
  • Academic email domains
  • Institutional organization owner
  • JOSS paper metadata
  • Scientific vocabulary similarity
    Low similarity (5.2%) to scientific vocabulary

Keywords

classification decision-trees deep-learning deep-neural-networks machine-learning random-forests
Last synced: 4 months ago · JSON representation ·

Repository

Conceptual & empirical comparisons between decision forests & deep networks

Basic Info
  • Host: GitHub
  • Owner: neurodata
  • License: other
  • Language: Jupyter Notebook
  • Default Branch: main
  • Homepage: https://dfdn.neurodata.io
  • Size: 606 MB
Statistics
  • Stars: 18
  • Watchers: 4
  • Forks: 8
  • Open Issues: 10
  • Releases: 5
Topics
classification decision-trees deep-learning deep-neural-networks machine-learning random-forests
Created almost 5 years ago · Last pushed 8 months ago
Metadata Files
Readme License Citation

README.md

When are Deep Networks really better than Decision Forests at small sample sizes, and how?

arXiv CircleCI Netlify Code style: black License

DF/DN: conceptual & empirical comparisons between Decision Forests & Deep Networks.

This is preliminary work. More details will be available.

  • Documentation: https://dfdn.neurodata.io/
  • Abstract: https://dfdn.neurodata.io/#abstract
  • Replication Guide: https://dfdn.neurodata.io/#replicate
  • Benchmark Figures: https://dfdn.neurodata.io/#benchmarks

Owner

  • Name: neurodata
  • Login: neurodata
  • Kind: organization
  • Email: admin@neurodata.io
  • Location: everywhere

Citation (CITATION.cff)

# YAML 1.2
---
abstract: "Deep networks and decision forests (such as random forests and gradient boosted trees) are the leading machine learning methods for structured and tabular data, respectively. Many papers have empirically compared large numbers of classifiers on one or two different domains (e.g., on 100 different tabular data settings). However, a careful conceptual and empirical comparison of these two strategies using the most contemporary best practices has yet to be performed. Conceptually, we illustrate that both can be profitably viewed as “partition and vote” schemes. Specifically, the representation space that they both learn is a partitioning of feature space into a union of convex polytopes. For inference, each decides on the basis of votes from the activated nodes. This formulation allows for a unified basic understanding of the relationship between these methods. Empirically, we compare these two strategies on hundreds of tabular data settings, as well as several vision and auditory settings. Our focus is on datasets with at most 10,000 samples, which represent a large fraction of scientific and biomedical datasets. In general, we found forests to excel at tabular and structured data (vision and audition) with small sample sizes, whereas deep nets performed better on structured data with larger sample sizes. This suggests that further gains in both scenarios may be realized via further combining aspects of forests and networks. We will continue revising this technical report in the coming months with updated results."
authors:
  -
    affiliation: "Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD"
    family-names: Xu
    given-names: Haoyin
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8235-4950"
  -
    affiliation: "Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD"
    family-names: Kinfu
    given-names: Kaleab
  -
    affiliation: "Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD"
    family-names: LeVine
    given-names: Will
  -
    affiliation: "Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD"
    family-names: Panda
    given-names: Sambit
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8455-4243"
  -
    affiliation: "Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD"
    family-names: Dey
    given-names: Jayanta
  -
    affiliation: "Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD"
    family-names: Ainsworth
    given-names: Michael
  -
    affiliation: "Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD"
    family-names: Peng
    given-names: "Yu-Chung"
  -
    affiliation: "Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD"
    family-names: Kusmanov
    given-names: Madi
  -
    affiliation: "Harvard University, Cambridge, MA"
    family-names: Engert
    given-names: Florian
  -
    affiliation: "Microsoft Research, Redmond, WA"
    family-names: White
    given-names: Christopher
  -
    affiliation: "Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD"
    family-names: Vogelstein
    given-names: Joshua
    orcid: "https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2487-6237"
  -
    affiliation: "Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD"
    family-names: Priebe
    given-names: Carey
cff-version: "1.2.0"
identifiers:
  -
    type: url
    value: "https://arxiv.org/pdf/2108.13637.pdf"
date-released: 2021-11-02
keywords:
  - Python
  - classification
  - "decision trees"
  - "random forests"
  - "deep networks"
license: MIT
message: "If you use the benchmark code of DF/DN, please cite it using these metadata."
repository-code: "https://github.com/neurodata/df-dn-paper"
title: "When are Deep Networks really better than Decision Forests at small sample sizes, and how?"
...

GitHub Events

Total
  • Watch event: 1
  • Delete event: 2
  • Issue comment event: 4
  • Pull request event: 5
  • Create event: 2
Last Year
  • Watch event: 1
  • Delete event: 2
  • Issue comment event: 4
  • Pull request event: 5
  • Create event: 2

Issues and Pull Requests

Last synced: 5 months ago

All Time
  • Total issues: 26
  • Total pull requests: 49
  • Average time to close issues: about 1 month
  • Average time to close pull requests: about 1 month
  • Total issue authors: 3
  • Total pull request authors: 10
  • Average comments per issue: 1.15
  • Average comments per pull request: 0.71
  • Merged pull requests: 38
  • Bot issues: 0
  • Bot pull requests: 5
Past Year
  • Issues: 0
  • Pull requests: 4
  • Average time to close issues: N/A
  • Average time to close pull requests: 23 days
  • Issue authors: 0
  • Pull request authors: 2
  • Average comments per issue: 0
  • Average comments per pull request: 1.25
  • Merged pull requests: 1
  • Bot issues: 0
  • Bot pull requests: 3
Top Authors
Issue Authors
  • PSSF23 (22)
  • adwaykanhere (3)
  • NogaMudrik (1)
Pull Request Authors
  • PSSF23 (27)
  • dependabot[bot] (8)
  • NogaMudrik (3)
  • Michael-Ainsworth (3)
  • adwaykanhere (3)
  • ypeng22 (2)
  • mkusman1 (2)
  • jzheng17 (1)
  • tongh18 (1)
  • WHHQUND (1)
Top Labels
Issue Labels
ndd (14) enhancement (9) vision (7) tabular (5) audition (4) documentation (2)
Pull Request Labels
documentation (15) audition (11) vision (10) enhancement (9) dependencies (8) python (6) tabular (3) wontfix (2) invalid (1) bug (1)

Dependencies

dev-requirements.txt pypi
  • black * development
  • wheel * development
docs/requirements.txt pypi
  • nbsphinx *
  • sphinx *
  • sphinx_rtd_theme *
requirements.txt pypi
  • librosa ==0.8.0
  • matplotlib *
  • numpy ==1.18.5
  • opencv-python ==4.5.2.52
  • openml ==0.11.0
  • scikit-learn ==0.22.2.post1
  • scipy ==1.5.2
  • seaborn *
  • torch ==1.8.1
  • torchaudio ==0.8.1
  • torchvision ==0.9.1