[R] seek non-black box alternative to randomForest

Don McKenzie dmck at u.washington.edu
Tue May 30 21:11:19 CEST 2017

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 <https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-pros-and-cons-of-GLM-vs-Random-forest-vs-SVM>

for some of the controversies.  It looks to me as if your editor stated (poorly) the problem that some models that are good at pattern-matching (RF) are less useful for predicting new observations.

Others n the list who are more erudite than I may choose to comment, amplify, or refute...

> On May 30, 2017, at 11:54 AM, Barry King <barry.king at qlx.com> wrote:
> I've recently had a research manuscript rejected by an editor. The
> manuscript showed
> that for a real life data set, random forest outperformed multiple linear
> regression
> with respect to predicting the target variable. The editor's objection was
> that
> random forest is a black box where the random assignment of features to
> trees was
> intractable. I need to find an alternative method to random forest that
> does not
> suffer from the black box label. Any suggestions? Would caret::treebag be
> free of
> random assignment of features? Your assistance is appreciated.
> --
> 	[[alternative HTML version deleted]]
> ______________________________________________
> R-help at r-project.org mailing list -- To UNSUBSCRIBE and more, see
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-help
> PLEASE do read the posting guide http://www.R-project.org/posting-guide.html
> and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code.

More information about the R-help mailing list