Re: [R] Difference between "tree" and "rpart"

From: Prof Brian Ripley <>
Date: Thu 05 May 2005 - 02:04:02 EST

rpart does much more at C level, including pruning and cross-validation so can be much faster.

It is also user-extensible.

tree was actually written to track down bugs in the then S implementation, and so is much closer to the functionality in S. It is not where I would have started from. It is really only available for R to support MASS and PRNN (my books).

On Wed, 4 May 2005, Dr Carbon wrote:

> In the help for rpart it says, "This differs from the tree function
> mainly in its handling of surrogate variables." And it says that an
> rpart object is a superset of a tree object. Both cite Brieman et al.
> 1984. Both call external code which looks like martian poetry to me.
> I've seen posts in the archives where BDR, and other knowledgeable
> folks, have said that rpart() is to be prefered over tree()
> Is there a simple reason why? They use the same fundamental algorithm.
> Are there differences in processing time? Bells and whistles?

Brian D. Ripley,        
Professor of Applied Statistics,
University of Oxford,             Tel:  +44 1865 272861 (self)
1 South Parks Road,                     +44 1865 272866 (PA)
Oxford OX1 3TG, UK                Fax:  +44 1865 272595

______________________________________________ mailing list
PLEASE do read the posting guide!
Received on Thu May 05 02:32:29 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri 03 Mar 2006 - 03:31:35 EST