Re: [R] seek non-black box alternative to randomForest

On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 12:11 PM, Don McKenzie wrote: > Though off-topic for this list, your question (complaint?) comes up a lot in > discussions of analytical methods, and has generated hundreds of papers > (Google is your friend here). > You can start with > > https://www.quora.com/What-are-t

Re: [R] seek non-black box alternative to randomForest

Though off-topic for this list, your question (complaint?) comes up a lot in discussions of analytical methods, and has generated hundreds of papers (Google is your friend here). You can start with https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-pros-and-cons-of-GLM-vs-Random-forest-vs-SVM

Re: [R] seek non-black box alternative to randomForest

I’m interested in the subject. If you send the question to another platform, please share the link here to follow up. Also, I wish to see the manuscript and rejected parts and detailed reasons. Most of the time, scientists want to reveal/discuss underlying physical process in an event and it’s n

Re: [R] seek non-black box alternative to randomForest

Barry, This is mostly a mailing list about R - you have have more luck with statistical questions on www.stat.stackexchange.com. That said - the editor is wrong. The limitations of trees that random forests “solves” is overfitting. The mechanism by which a random forest classifier is built i