Great. I love these very intuitive approach. Although I would be careful not to reduce the number of tres so much that it loses what is special about the forest. Maybe I would have choose the max number before the accuracy goes down. Anyway, thanks for this approach.
PS: In your very last bullet point, should it not be “decrease the run time” instead of “increase the runtime”?
Great. I love these very intuitive approach. Although I would be careful not to reduce the number of tres so much that it loses what is special about the forest. Maybe I would have choose the max number before the accuracy goes down. Anyway, thanks for this approach.
PS: In your very last bullet point, should it not be “decrease the run time” instead of “increase the runtime”?
Of course, Francois. That is why when I thought of this approach, my intention was to keep the best of them and that too until they until the accuracy. I am giving this approach much more thought and thinking of formalising it even more if possible.
And thanks for pointing out the mistake. Corrected it :)
Great. I love these very intuitive approach. Although I would be careful not to reduce the number of tres so much that it loses what is special about the forest. Maybe I would have choose the max number before the accuracy goes down. Anyway, thanks for this approach.
PS: In your very last bullet point, should it not be “decrease the run time” instead of “increase the runtime”?
Of course, Francois. That is why when I thought of this approach, my intention was to keep the best of them and that too until they until the accuracy. I am giving this approach much more thought and thinking of formalising it even more if possible.
And thanks for pointing out the mistake. Corrected it :)