Boosting Revisited: Benchmarking and Advancing LP-Based Ensemble Methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite their theoretical appeal, totally corrective boosting methods based on linear programming have received limited empirical attention. In this paper, we conduct the first large-scale experimental study of six LP-based boosting formulations, including two novel methods, NM-Boost and QRLP-Boost, across 20 diverse datasets. We evaluate the use of both heuristic and optimal base learners within these formulations, and analyze not only accuracy, but also ensemble sparsity, margin distribution, anytime performance, and hyperparameter sensitivity. We show that totally corrective methods can outperform or match state-of-the-art heuristics like XGBoost and LightGBM when using shallow trees, while producing significantly sparser ensembles. We further show that these methods can thin pre-trained ensembles without sacrificing performance, and we highlight both the strengths and limitations of using optimal decision trees in this context.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.017 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".