df-dn-paper
Conceptual & empirical comparisons between decision forests & deep networks
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?
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
- Website: https://neurodata.io
- Repositories: 175
- Profile: https://github.com/neurodata
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