Searcharxiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 0804.2757

Comment: Boosting Algorithms: Regularization, Prediction and Model Fitting

Andreas Buja·David Mease·Abraham J. Wyner
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

The authors are doing the readers of Statistical Science a true service with a well-written and up-to-date overview of boosting that originated with the seminal algorithms of Freund and Schapire. Equally, we are grateful for high-level software that will permit a larger readership to experiment with, or simply apply, boosting-inspired model fitting. The authors show us a world of methodology that illustrates how a fundamental innovation can penetrate every nook and cranny of statistical thinking and practice. They introduce the reader to one particular interpretation of boosting and then give a display of its potential with extensions from classification (where it all started) to least squares, exponential family models, survival analysis, to base-learners other than trees such as smoothing splines, to degrees of freedom and regularization, and to fascinating recent work in model selection. The uninitiated reader will find that the authors did a nice job of presenting a certain coherent and useful interpretation of boosting. The other reader, though, who has watched the business of boosting for a while, may have quibbles with the authors over details of the historic record and, more importantly, over their optimism about the current state of theoretical knowledge. In fact, as much as ``the statistical view'' has proven fruitful, it has also resulted in some ideas about why boosting works that may be misconceived, and in some recommendations that may be misguided. [arXiv:0804.2752]

Explore related subjects

stat.ME

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Andreas Buja, David Mease, Abraham J. Wyner. 2008-04-17. Comment: Boosting Algorithms: Regularization, Prediction and Model Fitting. https://doi.org/10.1214/07-sts242b

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Surprise Reduction and Nullification in Bayesian and Inverse Bayesian Inference under Ambiguous Prediction-Error Attribution

In non-stationary environments, prediction errors may signal environmental change or transient outliers, and adaptive systems must track such changes without overreacting to outliers. We distinguish surprise reduction, which updates beliefs to fit observations, from surprise nullification, which weakens constraints imposed by the predictive structure, and formalize both within Bayesian and inverse Bayesian (BIB) inference. Belief and likelihood updates are derived from variational objectives sharing a nullification strength, determined endogenously by minimizing surprise under the candidate post-update predictive distribution. In the Gaussian case, nullification expands belief and likelihood variances by a common factor relative to standard Bayesian updating, leaving the ratio unchanged. BIB thus defers attribution of the prediction error, committing to neither latent-state change nor observation-process uncertainty. The nullification strength is carried over as a candidate and is maintained or released according to the predictive surprise of the next observation. In a mean estimation task with outliers and changepoints, no scanned parameter setting of a Sage-Husa-type adaptive Kalman filter, fixed-strength BIB variant, or belief-forgetting-only variant outperforms BIB in both changepoint tracking and post-outlier stability. An oracle-informed reduced Bayesian model tracks changepoints better but is less stable after outliers. Although BIB maintains no explicit hypotheses about changepoints or outliers, it generates event-dependent dynamics. The learning rate increases after changepoints, whereas after outliers, nullification is released, and this increase is suppressed. Deferring attribution and letting subsequent observations differentiate the responses may constitute a principle of adaptive inference in non-stationary environments.

stat.ME↗
arXiv2026

Generalized Ridge Refitting for the Lasso and Prediction Improvement Bounds

We study a class of Lasso based estimators obtained by applying a quadratic correction on the Lasso equicorrelation set. The penalty matrix determines both the magnitude and geometry of the correction and contains, among other cases, the isotropic Lasso--Ridge correction, least squares refitting, Gram proportional interpolation between the Lasso and least squares, and coordinate specific penalties. We first derive a closed form representation and isolate the positive gain component of the resulting prediction improvement. We then control the remaining stochastic linear term in expectation by localizing the random signed equicorrelation model around a deterministic reference support. This yields a finite sample expectation bound that explicitly accounts for the randomness induced by Lasso model selection. The resulting decomposition provides a unified framework for understanding when Lasso based quadratic corrections can improve prediction.

stat.ME↗
arXiv2026

Discretization in covariate-adaptive randomization: gains and losses

Covariate-adaptive randomization(CAR) is widely implemented in clinical trials to balance prognostic covariates across treatment arms. Continuous covariates are often discretized into strata in practice, yet their consequences are not clearly understood. This paper provides a comprehensive study of the impact of discretization on both the CAR design process and the inferential results thereafter. We establish the asymptotic properties of both imbalance measures and treatment effect estimators under discretized and non-discretized settings. Practical recommendations are given on when and how discretization should be employed. We show that discretization in design is generally recommended, as it enhances robustness against model misspecification. However, if the true model is known, the most efficient strategy is to balance covariates according to that model in the design. The theoretical results are corroborated by extensive simulation studies and an empirical application to a diabetes trial dataset. Together, the results clarify the gains and losses of discretization in CAR and pave the way for learning impact of discretization to other designs and beyond.

stat.ME↗