There is no Double-Descent in Random Forests
This clarifies theoretical understanding of Random Forests for ML researchers, showing it is incremental by refining prior claims.
The paper challenges the claim that Random Forests exhibit a double-descent curve, showing they have a single descent and do not overfit classically, and introduces Negative Correlation Forest to demonstrate that diversity and bias impact performance, with a wide range of trade-offs yielding roughly equal results.
Random Forests (RFs) are among the state-of-the-art in machine learning and offer excellent performance with nearly zero parameter tuning. Remarkably, RFs seem to be impervious to overfitting even though their basic building blocks are well-known to overfit. Recently, a broadly received study argued that a RF exhibits a so-called double-descent curve: First, the model overfits the data in a u-shaped curve and then, once a certain model complexity is reached, it suddenly improves its performance again. In this paper, we challenge the notion that model capacity is the correct tool to explain the success of RF and argue that the algorithm which trains the model plays a more important role than previously thought. We show that a RF does not exhibit a double-descent curve but rather has a single descent. Hence, it does not overfit in the classic sense. We further present a RF variation that also does not overfit although its decision boundary approximates that of an overfitted DT. Similar, we show that a DT which approximates the decision boundary of a RF will still overfit. Last, we study the diversity of an ensemble as a tool the estimate its performance. To do so, we introduce Negative Correlation Forest (NCForest) which allows for precise control over the diversity in the ensemble. We show, that the diversity and the bias indeed have a crucial impact on the performance of the RF. Having too low diversity collapses the performance of the RF into a a single tree, whereas having too much diversity means that most trees do not produce correct outputs anymore. However, in-between these two extremes we find a large range of different trade-offs with all roughly equal performance. Hence, the specific trade-off between bias and diversity does not matter as long as the algorithm reaches this good trade-off regime.