Which of the following numbers is closest to the best parameter setting for the random forest algorithm on the income data?

Question

BlackTom AI · Accepted Answer

Question restatement: Which of the following numbers is closest to the best parameter setting for the random forest algorithm on the income data?

Options provided: 12, 27, 38, 18

Now, let's analyze each option in the context of tuning a random forest.

Option 1: 12
- A very small numeric value here might correspond to a relatively low setting for a parameter such as the number of trees (n_estimators) or a shallow depth bound (max_depth) somewhere in the tuning space. If the parameter is the number of trees, 12 trees could lead to high variance in predictions and underutilization of the ensemble’s averaging power, especially on a dataset with potentially subtle patterns like income data. If the parameter is a depth-like constraint, very shallow trees may cause underfitting and fail to capture complex interactions.
- Practical takeaway: too small a setting often risks underfitting or unstable performance if the chosen parameter governs model capacity.

Option 2: 27
- This value sits between very small and moderately larger configurations. It could represent a moderate number of trees or a modest depth allowance. The idea is that you might gain some of the benefits of ensembling without excessive training time or risk of overfitting. In many practical grids, mid-range values often serve as reasonable starting points for cross-validation.
- Practical takeaway: a middle-ground option can offer a balance between bias and variance, potentially performing better than very small settings, depending on data complexity.

Option 3: 38
- A higher value could reflect more trees or a deeper average tree. If you’re increasing the capacity of the forest, you may improve fit up to a point due to the law of large numbers in ensembles, but you also risk diminishing returns and longer training times. On income data, which can have non-linear relationships and interactions (education, demographics, etc.), a larger capacity might help capture such patterns, but not indefinitely.
- Practical takeaway: beyond a certain threshold, gains taper off; this setting could be beneficial if the data require more expressive trees, but watch for overfitting and cost.

Option 4: 18
- This value is again a mid-range option, similar in spirit to 27 but slightly lower. If the parameter is number of trees, 18 is still reasonable but might be on the edge of a sweet spot depending on the sample size and feature interactions. If the parameter is depth-related, 18 could imply moderately deep trees capable of capturing interactions without exploding complexity.
- Practical takeaway: like 27, this has potential to work well as a practical compromise, but its success hinges on the actual data structure and how the parameter maps to model capacity in your setup.

Overall reasoning on comparing options:
- The best parameter setting in a random forest typically comes from a validation approach (grid search, random search, or Bayesian optimization) that evaluates performance metrics on held-out data. Without such validation, you weigh trade-offs: smaller values tend toward bias, larger values toward variance and training cost.
- If your objective is to optimize accuracy on income data with potentially non-linear features, a moderate-to-slightly-higher capacity often helps, but not at the expense of overfitting or excessive computation.
- In short, the suitability of 12, 27, 38, or 18 depends on how the specific parameter maps to model capacity in your tuning setup; a data-driven validation step is the reliable way to determine which aligns closest with the best parameter setting.

Note on missing context:
- The question does not specify which exact parameter the numbers correspond to (e.g., n_estimators, max_depth, or another hyperparameter). Different parameters have different implications for model behavior, so the interpretation above treats the numbers as indicative values for capacity-related settings and discusses general tuning considerations accordingly.

2261 BUSQOM 0102 SEC1200 Project 2 Quiz

Which of the following numbers is closest to the best parameter setting for the random forest algorithm on the income data?

View Explanation

Log in for full answers

Similar Questions

Which statement best describes the difference between GridSearchCV and RandomizedSearchCV in scikit-learn?

In the project notebook the classification model building was never completed. After estimating generalization performance for the decision tree, logistic regression, and random forest algorithms we stopped. What would the next step in the model-building process have been if we had continued?

Question at position 36 Which of the following strategies/tools should we choose in order to decide the k value in a kNN model?Nested holdout testingNested Cross-validationCumulative response curveCross-validationLearning CurveLift curveFitting GraphHoldout testing

Which hyperparameter is NOT typically adjusted when tuning LLMs?

What is one challenge associated with LLMs?

In a consumer society, many adults channel creativity into buying things

Economic stress and unpredictable times have resulted in a booming industry for self-help products

More Practical Tools for Students Powered by AI Study Helper

Homework AI Solver

Stylized AI Paper Writer

Plagiarism Checker Assistant

Citation AI Academic Writing Tool

In-Class Translation Assistant

AI Note Generator

AI Quiz Answers

Past Exam Questions from University Test Bank

Smart Practice Assistant

Adaptive Practice

Making Your Study Simpler