Are ensembles getting better all the time?

Pierre-Alexandre Mattei, Damien Garreau
{"title":"Are ensembles getting better all the time?","authors":"Pierre-Alexandre Mattei, Damien Garreau","doi":"arxiv-2311.17885","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Ensemble methods combine the predictions of several base models. We study\nwhether or not including more models in an ensemble always improve its average\nperformance. Such a question depends on the kind of ensemble considered, as\nwell as the predictive metric chosen. We focus on situations where all members\nof the ensemble are a priori expected to perform as well, which is the case of\nseveral popular methods like random forests or deep ensembles. In this setting,\nwe essentially show that ensembles are getting better all the time if, and only\nif, the considered loss function is convex. More precisely, in that case, the\naverage loss of the ensemble is a decreasing function of the number of models.\nWhen the loss function is nonconvex, we show a series of results that can be\nsummarised by the insight that ensembles of good models keep getting better,\nand ensembles of bad models keep getting worse. To this end, we prove a new\nresult on the monotonicity of tail probabilities that may be of independent\ninterest. We illustrate our results on a simple machine learning problem\n(diagnosing melanomas using neural nets).","PeriodicalId":501330,"journal":{"name":"arXiv - MATH - Statistics Theory","volume":"92 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"arXiv - MATH - Statistics Theory","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/arxiv-2311.17885","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Ensemble methods combine the predictions of several base models. We study whether or not including more models in an ensemble always improve its average performance. Such a question depends on the kind of ensemble considered, as well as the predictive metric chosen. We focus on situations where all members of the ensemble are a priori expected to perform as well, which is the case of several popular methods like random forests or deep ensembles. In this setting, we essentially show that ensembles are getting better all the time if, and only if, the considered loss function is convex. More precisely, in that case, the average loss of the ensemble is a decreasing function of the number of models. When the loss function is nonconvex, we show a series of results that can be summarised by the insight that ensembles of good models keep getting better, and ensembles of bad models keep getting worse. To this end, we prove a new result on the monotonicity of tail probabilities that may be of independent interest. We illustrate our results on a simple machine learning problem (diagnosing melanomas using neural nets).
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
乐团是否一直在变得越来越好?
集合方法结合了几个基本模型的预测。我们研究了是否在一个集成中包含更多的模型总是提高它的平均性能。这样的问题取决于所考虑的集成类型,以及所选择的预测度量。我们关注的情况是,集合的所有成员都被先验地期望表现良好,这是几个流行的方法,如随机森林或深度集合的情况。在这种情况下,我们基本上表明,当且仅当所考虑的损失函数是凸的时,集成系统一直在变得更好。更准确地说,在这种情况下,整体的平均损失是模型数量的递减函数。当损失函数是非凸时,我们展示了一系列结果,这些结果可以总结为好的模型的集成越来越好,而坏模型的集成越来越差。为此,我们证明了一个关于尾概率单调性的新结果。我们在一个简单的机器学习问题(使用神经网络诊断黑色素瘤)上说明了我们的结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Precision-based designs for sequential randomized experiments Strang Splitting for Parametric Inference in Second-order Stochastic Differential Equations Stability of a Generalized Debiased Lasso with Applications to Resampling-Based Variable Selection Tuning parameter selection in econometrics Limiting Behavior of Maxima under Dependence
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1