  Existing guarantees in terms of rigorous upper bounds on the generalization
error for the original random forest algorithm, one of the most frequently used
machine learning methods, are unsatisfying. We discuss and evaluate various
PAC-Bayesian approaches to derive such bounds. The bounds do not require
additional hold-out data, because the out-of-bag samples from the bagging in
the training process can be exploited. A random forest predicts by taking a
majority vote of an ensemble of decision trees. The first approach is to bound
the error of the vote by twice the error of the corresponding Gibbs classifier
(classifying with a single member of the ensemble selected at random). However,
this approach does not take into account the effect of averaging out of errors
of individual classifiers when taking the majority vote. This effect provides a
significant boost in performance when the errors are independent or negatively
correlated, but when the correlations are strong the advantage from taking the
majority vote is small. The second approach based on PAC-Bayesian C-bounds
takes dependencies between ensemble members into account, but it requires
estimating correlations between the errors of the individual classifiers. When
the correlations are high or the estimation is poor, the bounds degrade. In our
experiments, we compute generalization bounds for random forests on various
benchmark data sets. Because the individual decision trees already perform
well, their predictions are highly correlated and the C-bounds do not lead to
satisfactory results. For the same reason, the bounds based on the analysis of
Gibbs classifiers are typically superior and often reasonably tight. Bounds
based on a validation set coming at the cost of a smaller training set gave
better performance guarantees, but worse performance in most experiments.
