Deep Distributed Random Samplings for Supervised Learning: An Alternative to Random Forests?

TL;DR

This paper introduces an extension of deep distributed random samplings (DDRS) for supervised learning, incorporating label information into the coding process, and compares it to random forests highlighting key differences and potential advantages.

Contribution

It presents a novel supervised learning extension of DDRS that simplifies training and offers an alternative to random forests by integrating label information into the coding process.

Findings

Proposed a supervised DDRS method incorporating label information.

Highlighted differences between DDRS and random forests in training and structure.

Claimed DDRS as a simpler, more straightforward alternative to random forests.

Abstract

In (\cite{zhang2014nonlinear,zhang2014nonlinear2}), we have viewed machine learning as a coding and dimensionality reduction problem, and further proposed a simple unsupervised dimensionality reduction method, entitled deep distributed random samplings (DDRS). In this paper, we further extend it to supervised learning incrementally. The key idea here is to incorporate label information into the coding process by reformulating that each center in DDRS has multiple output units indicating which class the center belongs to. The supervised learning method seems somewhat similar with random forests (\cite{breiman2001random}), here we emphasize their differences as follows. (i) Each layer of our method considers the relationship between part of the data points in training data with all training data points, while random forests focus on building each decision tree on only part of training data points independently. (ii) Our method builds gradually-narrowed network by sampling less and less data points, while random forests builds gradually-narrowed network by merging subclasses. (iii) Our method is trained more straightforward from bottom layer to top layer, while random forests build each tree from top layer to bottom layer by splitting. (iv) Our method encodes output targets implicitly in sparse codes, while random forests encode output targets by remembering the class attributes of the activated nodes. Therefore, our method is a simpler, more straightforward, and maybe a better alternative choice, though both methods use two very basic elements---randomization and nearest neighbor optimization---as the core. This preprint is used to protect the incremental idea from (\cite{zhang2014nonlinear,zhang2014nonlinear2}). Full empirical evaluation will be announced carefully later.