Skip to main content

Is a Greedy Covering Strategy an Extreme Boosting?

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Foundations of Intelligent Systems (ISMIS 2002)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 2366))

Included in the following conference series:

  • 651 Accesses

Abstract

A new view of majority voting as a Monte Carlo stochastic algorithm is presented in this paper. Relation between the two approaches allows Adaboost’s example weighting strategy to be compared with the greedy covering strategy used for a long time in Machine Learning. The greedy covering strategy does not clearly show overfitting, it runs in at least one order of magnitude less time, it reaches zero error on the training set in few trials, and the error on the test set is most of the time comparable to that exhibited by AdaBoost.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Eric Bauer and Ron Kohavi. An empirical comparison of voting classification algorithms: Bagging, boosting, and variants. Machine Learning, 36:105, 1999.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. G. Brassard and P. Bratley. Algorithmics: theory and practice, 1988. 3. Leo Breiman. Bagging predictors. Machine Learning, 24(2):123–140, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  3. R. Esposito and L. Saitta. “Is a Greedy Covering Strategy an Extreme Boosting?”: table of experiments. http://www.di.unito.it/~esposito/mcandboost.

  4. Y. Freund and R. Schapire. Game theory, on-line prediction and boosting. In Proceedings, 9th Annual Conference on Computational Learning Theory, pages 325–332, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Yoav Freund and Robert E. Schapire. Experiments with a new boosting algorithm. In Proc. 13th International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 148–146. Morgan Kaufmann, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  6. J. Friedman, J. Stochastic, T. Hastie, and R. Tibshirani. Additive logistic regression: a statistical view of boosting. Technical report, Department of Statistics, Stanford University, 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  7. J. R. Quinlan. Bagging, boosting and c4.5. In Proc. AAAI’96 National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  8. R. Schapire, Y. Freund, P. Bartlett, and W. Lee. Boosting the margin: A new explanation for the effectiveness of voting methods. Annals of Statistic, 26(5):1651–1686, 1998.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  9. Robert E. Schapire. The strength of weak learnability. Machine Learning, 5:197, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2002 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Esposito, R., Saitta, L. (2002). Is a Greedy Covering Strategy an Extreme Boosting?. In: Hacid, MS., Raś, Z.W., Zighed, D.A., Kodratoff, Y. (eds) Foundations of Intelligent Systems. ISMIS 2002. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 2366. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-48050-1_12

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-48050-1_12

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-43785-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-48050-1

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics