ML Interview Q Series: What are some situations in which Random Forests can be preferred over Neural Networks, and why might they be chosen?

📚 Browse the full ML Interview series here.

Comprehensive Explanation

Random Forests and Neural Networks are fundamentally different in how they model data. Random Forests are ensemble methods based on decision trees, while Neural Networks rely on layers of learned weights. Although Neural Networks can achieve high performance in many tasks, there are times when Random Forests are clearly advantageous. Important considerations include interpretability, training time, hyperparameter tuning complexity, data size, and risk of overfitting.

Random Forests often excel when data is tabular, with a moderate number of features and relatively fewer training samples. They can capture nonlinear patterns, handle missing data, and are less sensitive to overfitting, particularly if properly tuned with an appropriate depth for each tree and a sufficient number of trees in the ensemble. They are typically straightforward to train, require fewer hyperparameters to tune, and work well out of the box. Another important factor is that Random Forests can provide straightforward measures of feature importance, which can be useful for interpretability and diagnosing the factors driving predictions.

Neural Networks, on the other hand, tend to require large amounts of data, careful hyperparameter tuning, and often more computational resources to achieve high accuracy. They excel in tasks involving unstructured data such as images or natural language. For structured, tabular data, a well-tuned Random Forest can be a strong baseline or even outperform a Neural Network when data is limited or has many categorical features. Interpretability is also more accessible with tree-based models, while Neural Networks are generally regarded as black boxes unless specialized techniques are used to interpret their internal representations.

One way to think about the aggregation in a Random Forest is that the final prediction is the averaged output (in regression) or a majority vote (in classification) of all decision trees in the ensemble, where each tree is trained on a bootstrap sample of the original dataset and a random subset of the features. The aggregated prediction can be expressed through the mean of the individual trees’ predictions for regression, which helps reduce variance and increases robustness.

Here, M is the total number of trees in the forest, and y^(m) is the prediction from tree m. Each tree is a traditional decision tree trained on a randomly selected subset of data points and features, which introduces diversity among the trees. The final averaged prediction helps reduce variance, leading to a more stable model.

When explaining these advantages in an interview, it is important to highlight how the strong out-of-the-box performance of Random Forests, their reduced tendency to overfit, and their interpretability can be critical in practical business situations. For example, in a healthcare application, being able to quickly understand which features most strongly affect a patient’s risk can be far more important than the incremental accuracy a black-box Neural Network might offer under ideal data conditions.

Example Code Snippet

from sklearn.ensemble import RandomForestClassifier
from sklearn.model_selection import train_test_split
from sklearn.metrics import accuracy_score
import pandas as pd

# Suppose we have a CSV file with tabular data
data = pd.read_csv('sample_data.csv')
X = data.drop('target', axis=1)
y = data['target']

X_train, X_test, y_train, y_test = train_test_split(X, y, test_size=0.2, random_state=42)

model = RandomForestClassifier(n_estimators=100, max_depth=None, random_state=42)
model.fit(X_train, y_train)

predictions = model.predict(X_test)
print("Accuracy:", accuracy_score(y_test, predictions))

# Feature importance can also be inspected easily
importances = model.feature_importances_
print("Feature Importances:", importances)

This example shows how straightforward it is to train a Random Forest on tabular data. With relatively minimal hyperparameter tuning (just specifying the number of trees and optionally the tree depth), one can get a powerful model that performs well for many real-world datasets.

What Are Potential Follow-Up Questions?

Why might Neural Networks still be chosen despite Random Forests being simpler?

In some tasks, especially with large-scale unstructured data, Neural Networks substantially outperform Random Forests. High-dimensional image data, audio, or text typically benefit from convolutional or recurrent neural architectures. Neural Networks can learn hierarchical representations of features and can be scaled with sophisticated hardware (GPUs, TPUs) to achieve remarkable performance. Another factor is the potential for transfer learning when using pretrained models.

How do Random Forests handle outliers and class imbalance?

Random Forests handle outliers more gracefully than many other algorithms because each decision tree considers splits in the feature space without relying on distance metrics. However, in severely imbalanced datasets, the algorithm might still be biased toward the majority class, since bootstrap sampling does not inherently address imbalance. Techniques like class weighting, oversampling, or undersampling may still be required to improve performance on minority classes.

Are there any specialized libraries or GPU-accelerated implementations for Random Forests?

There are libraries like cuML (part of RAPIDS for GPU-accelerated machine learning) which provide GPU-based implementations of Random Forests. While they are often not as widely adopted as GPU-based neural network frameworks, they can significantly speed up training for large datasets. However, compared to Neural Networks that leverage massive parallelization in matrix multiplications, the typical branching nature of decision trees does not always achieve as much speed-up from GPUs.

How does Random Forest’s feature importance work and what are its pitfalls?

Random Forest’s feature importance is calculated based on how much each feature reduces impurity across the ensemble. For classification, Gini impurity decrease is often used. However, these importance measures can be misleading if features are highly correlated or if a feature with multiple splits receives more significance simply by virtue of having more opportunities for splitting. Permutation-based feature importance can offer a more robust measure because it assesses how scrambling a feature’s values affects the predictive performance of the model.

How would you compare hyperparameter tuning complexity?

Neural Networks typically have more hyperparameters to configure, such as number of layers, number of neurons, learning rate, regularization factors, batch size, optimizer type, and more. Random Forests primarily need the number of trees and maximum depth tuned, and these parameters have more intuitive defaults (like 100–200 trees and a depth that grows until leaf nodes are pure). Neural Network tuning often requires large computational budgets and systematic search strategies like grid search, random search, or Bayesian optimization to converge on a good architecture.

These considerations help clarify why Random Forests can be chosen over Neural Networks in particular scenarios, especially when interpretability, ease of training, and robust performance on tabular data are essential.