Read the Docs

Read the Docs is an open-sourced free software documentation hosting platform. It generates documentation written with the Sphinx documentation generator, MkDocs, or Jupyter Book. == History == The site was created in 2010 by Eric Holscher, Bobby Grace, and Charles Leifer. On March 9, 2011, the Python Software Foundation Board awarded a grant of US$840 to the Read the Docs project for one year of hosting fees. On November 13, 2017, the Linux Mint project announced that they were moving their documentation to Read the Docs. In 2020, Read the Docs received a $200,000 grant from the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative. For 2021, Read the Docs reported 700 million page views and 196 million unique visitors. In 2013, a "Write the Docs" conference for Read the Docs users was launched, which has since turned into a generic software-documentation community. As of 2024, it continues to hold annual global conferences, organize local meetups, and maintain a Slack channel for "people who care about documentation."

Automated Mathematician

The Automated Mathematician (AM) is one of the earliest successful discovery systems. It was created by Douglas Lenat in Lisp, and in 1977 led to Lenat being awarded the IJCAI Computers and Thought Award. AM worked by generating and modifying short Lisp programs which were then interpreted as defining various mathematical concepts; for example, a program that tested equality between the length of two lists was considered to represent the concept of numerical equality, while a program that produced a list whose length was the product of the lengths of two other lists was interpreted as representing the concept of multiplication. The system had elaborate heuristics for choosing which programs to extend and modify, based on the experiences of working mathematicians in solving mathematical problems. == Controversy == Lenat claimed that the system was composed of hundreds of data structures called "concepts", together with hundreds of "heuristic rules" and a simple flow of control: "AM repeatedly selects the top task from the agenda and tries to carry it out. This is the whole control structure!" Yet the heuristic rules were not always represented as separate data structures; some had to be intertwined with the control flow logic. Some rules had preconditions that depended on the history, or otherwise could not be represented in the framework of the explicit rules. What's more, the published versions of the rules often involve vague terms that are not defined further, such as "If two expressions are structurally similar, ..." (Rule 218) or "... replace the value obtained by some other (very similar) value..." (Rule 129). Another source of information is the user, via Rule 2: "If the user has recently referred to X, then boost the priority of any tasks involving X." Thus, it appears quite possible that much of the real discovery work is buried in unexplained procedures. Lenat claimed that the system had rediscovered both Goldbach's conjecture and the fundamental theorem of arithmetic. Later critics accused Lenat of over-interpreting the output of AM. In his paper Why AM and Eurisko appear to work, Lenat conceded that any system that generated enough short Lisp programs would generate ones that could be interpreted by an external observer as representing equally sophisticated mathematical concepts. However, he argued that this property was in itself interesting—and that a promising direction for further research would be to look for other languages in which short random strings were likely to be useful. == Successor == This intuition was the basis of AM's successor Eurisko, which attempted to generalize the search for mathematical concepts to the search for useful heuristics.

Artificial development

Artificial development, also known as artificial embryogeny or machine intelligence or computational development, is an area of computer science and engineering concerned with computational models motivated by genotype–phenotype mappings in biological systems. Artificial development is often considered a sub-field of evolutionary computation, although the principles of artificial development have also been used within stand-alone computational models. Within evolutionary computation, the need for artificial development techniques was motivated by the perceived lack of scalability and evolvability of direct solution encodings (Tufte, 2008). Artificial development entails indirect solution encoding. Rather than describing a solution directly, an indirect encoding describes (either explicitly or implicitly) the process by which a solution is constructed. Often, but not always, these indirect encodings are based upon biological principles of development such as morphogen gradients, cell division and cellular differentiation (e.g. Doursat 2008), gene regulatory networks (e.g. Guo et al., 2009), degeneracy (Whitacre et al., 2010), grammatical evolution (de Salabert et al., 2006), or analogous computational processes such as re-writing, iteration, and time. The influences of interaction with the environment, spatiality and physical constraints on differentiated multi-cellular development have been investigated more recently (e.g. Knabe et al. 2008). Artificial development approaches have been applied to a number of computational and design problems, including electronic circuit design (Miller and Banzhaf 2003), robotic controllers (e.g. Taylor 2004), and the design of physical structures (e.g. Hornby 2004).

AdaBoost

AdaBoost (short for Adaptive Boosting) is a statistical classification meta-algorithm formulated by Yoav Freund and Robert Schapire in 1995, who won the 2003 Gödel Prize for their work. It can be used in conjunction with many types of learning algorithm to improve performance. The output of multiple weak learners is combined into a weighted sum that represents the final output of the boosted classifier. Usually, AdaBoost is presented for binary classification, although it can be generalized to multiple classes or bounded intervals of real values. AdaBoost is adaptive in the sense that subsequent weak learners (models) are adjusted in favor of instances misclassified by previous models. In some problems, it can be less susceptible to overfitting than other learning algorithms. The individual learners can be weak, but as long as the performance of each one is slightly better than random guessing, the final model can be proven to converge to a strong learner. Although AdaBoost is typically used to combine weak base learners (such as decision stumps), it has been shown to also effectively combine strong base learners (such as deeper decision trees), producing an even more accurate model. Every learning algorithm tends to suit some problem types better than others, and typically has many different parameters and configurations to adjust before it achieves optimal performance on a dataset. AdaBoost (with decision trees as the weak learners) is often referred to as the best out-of-the-box classifier. When used with decision tree learning, information gathered at each stage of the AdaBoost algorithm about the relative 'hardness' of each training sample is fed into the tree-growing algorithm such that later trees tend to focus on harder-to-classify examples. == Training == AdaBoost refers to a particular method of training a boosted classifier. A boosted classifier is a classifier of the form F T ( x ) = ∑ t = 1 T f t ( x ) {\displaystyle F_{T}(x)=\sum _{t=1}^{T}f_{t}(x)} where each f t {\displaystyle f_{t}} is a weak learner that takes an object x {\displaystyle x} as input and returns a value indicating the class of the object. For example, in the two-class problem, the sign of the weak learner's output identifies the predicted object class and the absolute value gives the confidence in that classification. Each weak learner produces an output hypothesis h {\displaystyle h} which fixes a prediction h ( x i ) {\displaystyle h(x_{i})} for each sample in the training set. At each iteration t {\displaystyle t} , a weak learner is selected and assigned a coefficient α t {\displaystyle \alpha _{t}} such that the total training error E t {\displaystyle E_{t}} of the resulting t {\displaystyle t} -stage boosted classifier is minimized. E t = ∑ i E [ F t − 1 ( x i ) + α t h ( x i ) ] {\displaystyle E_{t}=\sum _{i}E[F_{t-1}(x_{i})+\alpha _{t}h(x_{i})]} Here F t − 1 ( x ) {\displaystyle F_{t-1}(x)} is the boosted classifier that has been built up to the previous stage of training and f t ( x ) = α t h ( x ) {\displaystyle f_{t}(x)=\alpha _{t}h(x)} is the weak learner that is being considered for addition to the final classifier. === Weighting === At each iteration of the training process, a weight w i , t {\displaystyle w_{i,t}} is assigned to each sample in the training set equal to the current error E ( F t − 1 ( x i ) ) {\displaystyle E(F_{t-1}(x_{i}))} on that sample. These weights can be used in the training of the weak learner. For instance, decision trees can be grown which favor the splitting of sets of samples with large weights. == Derivation == This derivation follows Rojas (2009): Suppose we have a data set { ( x 1 , y 1 ) , … , ( x N , y N ) } {\displaystyle \{(x_{1},y_{1}),\ldots ,(x_{N},y_{N})\}} where each item x i {\displaystyle x_{i}} has an associated class y i ∈ { − 1 , 1 } {\displaystyle y_{i}\in \{-1,1\}} , and a set of weak classifiers { k 1 , … , k L } {\displaystyle \{k_{1},\ldots ,k_{L}\}} each of which outputs a classification k j ( x i ) ∈ { − 1 , 1 } {\displaystyle k_{j}(x_{i})\in \{-1,1\}} for each item. After the ( m − 1 ) {\displaystyle (m-1)} -th iteration our boosted classifier is a linear combination of the weak classifiers of the form: C ( m − 1 ) ( x i ) = α 1 k 1 ( x i ) + ⋯ + α m − 1 k m − 1 ( x i ) , {\displaystyle C_{(m-1)}(x_{i})=\alpha _{1}k_{1}(x_{i})+\cdots +\alpha _{m-1}k_{m-1}(x_{i}),} where the class will be the sign of C ( m − 1 ) ( x i ) {\displaystyle C_{(m-1)}(x_{i})} . At the m {\displaystyle m} -th iteration we want to extend this to a better boosted classifier by adding another weak classifier k m {\displaystyle k_{m}} , with another weight α m {\displaystyle \alpha _{m}} : C m ( x i ) = C ( m − 1 ) ( x i ) + α m k m ( x i ) {\displaystyle C_{m}(x_{i})=C_{(m-1)}(x_{i})+\alpha _{m}k_{m}(x_{i})} So it remains to determine which weak classifier is the best choice for k m {\displaystyle k_{m}} , and what its weight α m {\displaystyle \alpha _{m}} should be. We define the total error E {\displaystyle E} of C m {\displaystyle C_{m}} as the sum of its exponential loss on each data point, given as follows: E = ∑ i = 1 N e − y i C m ( x i ) = ∑ i = 1 N e − y i C ( m − 1 ) ( x i ) e − y i α m k m ( x i ) {\displaystyle E=\sum _{i=1}^{N}e^{-y_{i}C_{m}(x_{i})}=\sum _{i=1}^{N}e^{-y_{i}C_{(m-1)}(x_{i})}e^{-y_{i}\alpha _{m}k_{m}(x_{i})}} Letting w i ( 1 ) = 1 {\displaystyle w_{i}^{(1)}=1} and w i ( m ) = e − y i C m − 1 ( x i ) {\displaystyle w_{i}^{(m)}=e^{-y_{i}C_{m-1}(x_{i})}} for m > 1 {\displaystyle m>1} , we have: E = ∑ i = 1 N w i ( m ) e − y i α m k m ( x i ) {\displaystyle E=\sum _{i=1}^{N}w_{i}^{(m)}e^{-y_{i}\alpha _{m}k_{m}(x_{i})}} We can split this summation between those data points that are correctly classified by k m {\displaystyle k_{m}} (so y i k m ( x i ) = 1 {\displaystyle y_{i}k_{m}(x_{i})=1} ) and those that are misclassified (so y i k m ( x i ) = − 1 {\displaystyle y_{i}k_{m}(x_{i})=-1} ): E = ∑ y i = k m ( x i ) w i ( m ) e − α m + ∑ y i ≠ k m ( x i ) w i ( m ) e α m = ∑ i = 1 N w i ( m ) e − α m + ∑ y i ≠ k m ( x i ) w i ( m ) ( e α m − e − α m ) {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}E&=\sum _{y_{i}=k_{m}(x_{i})}w_{i}^{(m)}e^{-\alpha _{m}}+\sum _{y_{i}\neq k_{m}(x_{i})}w_{i}^{(m)}e^{\alpha _{m}}\\&=\sum _{i=1}^{N}w_{i}^{(m)}e^{-\alpha _{m}}+\sum _{y_{i}\neq k_{m}(x_{i})}w_{i}^{(m)}\left(e^{\alpha _{m}}-e^{-\alpha _{m}}\right)\end{aligned}}} Since the only part of the right-hand side of this equation that depends on k m {\displaystyle k_{m}} is ∑ y i ≠ k m ( x i ) w i ( m ) {\textstyle \sum _{y_{i}\neq k_{m}(x_{i})}w_{i}^{(m)}} , we see that the k m {\displaystyle k_{m}} that minimizes E {\displaystyle E} is the one in the set { k 1 , … , k L } {\displaystyle \{k_{1},\ldots ,k_{L}\}} that minimizes ∑ y i ≠ k m ( x i ) w i ( m ) {\textstyle \sum _{y_{i}\neq k_{m}(x_{i})}w_{i}^{(m)}} [assuming that α m > 0 {\displaystyle \alpha _{m}>0} ], i.e. the weak classifier with the lowest weighted error (with weights w i ( m ) = e − y i C m − 1 ( x i ) {\displaystyle w_{i}^{(m)}=e^{-y_{i}C_{m-1}(x_{i})}} ). To determine the desired weight α m {\displaystyle \alpha _{m}} that minimizes E {\displaystyle E} with the k m {\displaystyle k_{m}} that we just determined, we differentiate: d E d α m = d ( ∑ y i = k m ( x i ) w i ( m ) e − α m + ∑ y i ≠ k m ( x i ) w i ( m ) e α m ) d α m {\displaystyle {\frac {dE}{d\alpha _{m}}}={\frac {d(\sum _{y_{i}=k_{m}(x_{i})}w_{i}^{(m)}e^{-\alpha _{m}}+\sum _{y_{i}\neq k_{m}(x_{i})}w_{i}^{(m)}e^{\alpha _{m}})}{d\alpha _{m}}}} The value of α m {\displaystyle \alpha _{m}} that minimizes the above expression is: α m = 1 2 ln ⁡ ( ∑ y i = k m ( x i ) w i ( m ) ∑ y i ≠ k m ( x i ) w i ( m ) ) {\displaystyle \alpha _{m}={\frac {1}{2}}\ln \left({\frac {\sum _{y_{i}=k_{m}(x_{i})}w_{i}^{(m)}}{\sum _{y_{i}\neq k_{m}(x_{i})}w_{i}^{(m)}}}\right)} We calculate the weighted error rate of the weak classifier to be ϵ m = ∑ y i ≠ k m ( x i ) w i ( m ) ∑ i = 1 N w i ( m ) {\displaystyle \epsilon _{m}={\frac {\sum _{y_{i}\neq k_{m}(x_{i})}w_{i}^{(m)}}{\sum _{i=1}^{N}w_{i}^{(m)}}}} , so it follows that: α m = 1 2 ln ⁡ ( 1 − ϵ m ϵ m ) {\displaystyle \alpha _{m}={\frac {1}{2}}\ln \left({\frac {1-\epsilon _{m}}{\epsilon _{m}}}\right)} which is the negative logit function multiplied by 0.5. Due to the convexity of E {\displaystyle E} as a function of α m {\displaystyle \alpha _{m}} , this new expression for α m {\displaystyle \alpha _{m}} gives the global minimum of the loss function. Note: This derivation only applies when k m ( x i ) ∈ { − 1 , 1 } {\displaystyle k_{m}(x_{i})\in \{-1,1\}} , though it can be a good starting guess in other cases, such as when the weak learner is biased ( k m ( x ) ∈ { a , b } , a ≠ − b {\displaystyle k_{m}(x)\in \{a,b\},a\neq -b} ), has multiple leaves ( k m ( x ) ∈ { a , b , … , n } {\displaystyle k_{m}(x)\in \{a,b,\dots ,n\}} ) or is some other function k m ( x ) ∈ R {\displaystyle k_{m}(x)\in \mathbb {R} } . Thus we have derived the AdaBoost algorithm: At each

Algorithmic learning theory

Algorithmic learning theory is a mathematical framework for analyzing machine learning problems and algorithms. Synonyms include formal learning theory and algorithmic inductive inference. Algorithmic learning theory is different from statistical learning theory in that it does not make use of statistical assumptions and analysis. Both algorithmic and statistical learning theory are concerned with machine learning and can thus be viewed as branches of computational learning theory. == Distinguishing characteristics == Unlike statistical learning theory and most statistical theory in general, algorithmic learning theory does not assume that data are random samples, that is, that data points are independent of each other. This makes the theory suitable for domains where observations are (relatively) noise-free but not random, such as language learning and automated scientific discovery. The fundamental concept of algorithmic learning theory is learning in the limit: as the number of data points increases, a learning algorithm should converge to a correct hypothesis on every possible data sequence consistent with the problem space. This is a non-probabilistic version of statistical consistency, which also requires convergence to a correct model in the limit, but allows a learner to fail on data sequences with probability measure 0 . Algorithmic learning theory investigates the learning power of Turing machines. Other frameworks consider a much more restricted class of learning algorithms than Turing machines, for example, learners that compute hypotheses more quickly, for instance in polynomial time. An example of such a framework is probably approximately correct learning . == Learning in the limit == The concept was introduced in E. Mark Gold's seminal paper "Language identification in the limit". The objective of language identification is for a machine running one program to be capable of developing another program by which any given sentence can be tested to determine whether it is "grammatical" or "ungrammatical". The language being learned need not be English or any other natural language - in fact the definition of "grammatical" can be absolutely anything known to the tester. In Gold's learning model, the tester gives the learner an example sentence at each step, and the learner responds with a hypothesis, which is a suggested program to determine grammatical correctness. It is required of the tester that every possible sentence (grammatical or not) appears in the list eventually, but no particular order is required. It is required of the learner that at each step the hypothesis must be correct for all the sentences so far. A particular learner is said to be able to "learn a language in the limit" if there is a certain number of steps beyond which its hypothesis no longer changes. At this point it has indeed learned the language, because every possible sentence appears somewhere in the sequence of inputs (past or future), and the hypothesis is correct for all inputs (past or future), so the hypothesis is correct for every sentence. The learner is not required to be able to tell when it has reached a correct hypothesis, all that is required is that it be true. Gold showed that any language which is defined by a Turing machine program can be learned in the limit by another Turing-complete machine using enumeration. This is done by the learner testing all possible Turing machine programs in turn until one is found which is correct so far - this forms the hypothesis for the current step. Eventually, the correct program will be reached, after which the hypothesis will never change again (but note that the learner does not know that it won't need to change). Gold also showed that if the learner is given only positive examples (that is, only grammatical sentences appear in the input, not ungrammatical sentences), then the language can only be guaranteed to be learned in the limit if there are only a finite number of possible sentences in the language (this is possible if, for example, sentences are known to be of limited length). Language identification in the limit is a highly abstract model. It does not allow for limits of runtime or computer memory which can occur in practice, and the enumeration method may fail if there are errors in the input. However the framework is very powerful, because if these strict conditions are maintained, it allows the learning of any program known to be computable. This is because a Turing machine program can be written to mimic any program in any conventional programming language. See Church-Turing thesis. == Other identification criteria == Learning theorists have investigated other learning criteria, such as the following. Efficiency: minimizing the number of data points required before convergence to a correct hypothesis. Mind Changes: minimizing the number of hypothesis changes that occur before convergence. Mind change bounds are closely related to mistake bounds that are studied in statistical learning theory. Kevin Kelly has suggested that minimizing mind changes is closely related to choosing maximally simple hypotheses in the sense of Occam’s Razor. == Annual conference == Since 1990, there is an International Conference on Algorithmic Learning Theory (ALT), called Workshop in its first years (1990–1997). Between 1992 and 2016, proceedings were published in the LNCS series. Starting from 2017, they are published by the Proceedings of Machine Learning Research. The 34th conference will be held in Singapore in Feb 2023. The topics of the conference cover all of theoretical machine learning, including statistical and computational learning theory, online learning, active learning, reinforcement learning, and deep learning.

MoltenVK

MoltenVK is a software library which allows Vulkan applications to run on top of Metal on Apple's macOS, iOS, and tvOS operating systems. It is the first software component to be released for the Vulkan Portability Initiative, a project to have a subset of Vulkan run on platforms lacking native Vulkan drivers. There are some limitations compared with a native Vulkan implementation. == History == MoltenVK was first released as a proprietary and commercially licensed product by The Brenwill Workshop on July 27, 2016. On July 31, 2017, Khronos announced the formation of the Vulkan Portability Technical Subgroup. === Open source === On February 26, 2018, Khronos announced that Vulkan became available on macOS and iOS products through the MoltenVK library. Valve announced that Dota 2 will run on macOS using the Vulkan API with the aid of MoltenVK, and that they had made an arrangement with developer The Brenwill Workshop Ltd to release MoltenVK as open-source software under the Apache License version 2.0. On May 30, 2018, Qt was updated with Vulkan for Qt on macOS using MoltenVK. On May 31, 2018, optional Vulkan support for Dota 2 on macOS was released. Benchmarks for the game were available the following day, showing better performance using Vulkan and MoltenVK compared to OpenGL. On July 20, 2018, Wine was updated with Vulkan support on macOS using MoltenVK. On 29 July 2018, the first app using MoltenVK was accepted onto the App Store, after initially being rejected. On 6 August 2018, Google open-sourced Filament, a crossplatform real-time physically based rendering engine with MoltenVK for macOS/iOS. On November 28, 2018, Valve released Artifact, their first Vulkan-only game on macOS using MoltenVK. === Version 1.0 === On 29 January 2019, MoltenVK 1.0.32 was released with early prototype of Vulkan Portability Extensions. RPCS3 and Dolphin emulators were updated with Vulkan support on macOS using MoltenVK. On 13 April 2019, MoltenVK 1.0.34 was released with support for tessellation. On July 30, 2019, MoltenVK 1.0.36 was released targeting Metal 3.0. On July 31, 2020, MoltenVK 1.0.44 was released, adding support for the tvOS platform. On January 23, 2020, MoltenVK was updated to support for some of the new features of Vulkan 1.2, as of Vulkan SDK 1.2.121. === Version 1.1 === On October 1, 2020, MoltenVK 1.1.0 was released, adding full support for Vulkan 1.1, as of Vulkan SDK 1.2.154. On 9 December 2020, MoltenVK 1.1.1 was released, providing support for Vulkan on Apple silicon GPUs and support for the Mac Catalyst platform for porting iOS/iPadOS apps to macOS. === Version 1.2 === On October 18, 2022, MoltenVK 1.2.0 was released, adding full support for Vulkan 1.2 as of Vulkan SDK 1.3.231. In January 2023, MoltenVK 1.2.2 added support for Vulkan as of SDK 1.3.239, while this version of Vulkan SDK fixed some issues with the interconnectivity with Metal API, while version 1.2.3 supported some additional extensions. === Version 1.3 === On May 1, 2025, MoltenVK 1.3 was released with support for Vulkan 1.3. === Version 1.4 === On August 20, 2025, MoltenVK 1.4 was released with support for Vulkan 1.4.

LPBoost

Linear Programming Boosting (LPBoost) is a supervised classifier from the boosting family of classifiers. LPBoost maximizes a margin between training samples of different classes, and thus also belongs to the class of margin classifier algorithms. Consider a classification function f : X → { − 1 , 1 } , {\displaystyle f:{\mathcal {X}}\to \{-1,1\},} which classifies samples from a space X {\displaystyle {\mathcal {X}}} into one of two classes, labelled 1 and -1, respectively. LPBoost is an algorithm for learning such a classification function, given a set of training examples with known class labels. LPBoost is a machine learning technique especially suited for joint classification and feature selection in structured domains. == LPBoost overview == As in all boosting classifiers, the final classification function is of the form f ( x ) = ∑ j = 1 J α j h j ( x ) , {\displaystyle f({\boldsymbol {x}})=\sum _{j=1}^{J}\alpha _{j}h_{j}({\boldsymbol {x}}),} where α j {\displaystyle \alpha _{j}} are non-negative weightings for weak classifiers h j : X → { − 1 , 1 } {\displaystyle h_{j}:{\mathcal {X}}\to \{-1,1\}} . Each individual weak classifier h j {\displaystyle h_{j}} may be just a little bit better than random, but the resulting linear combination of many weak classifiers can perform very well. LPBoost constructs f {\displaystyle f} by starting with an empty set of weak classifiers. Iteratively, a single weak classifier to add to the set of considered weak classifiers is selected, added and all the weights α {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {\alpha }}} for the current set of weak classifiers are adjusted. This is repeated until no weak classifiers to add remain. The property that all classifier weights are adjusted in each iteration is known as totally-corrective property. Early boosting methods, such as AdaBoost do not have this property and converge slower. == Linear program == More generally, let H = { h ( ⋅ ; ω ) | ω ∈ Ω } {\displaystyle {\mathcal {H}}=\{h(\cdot ;\omega )|\omega \in \Omega \}} be the possibly infinite set of weak classifiers, also termed hypotheses. One way to write down the problem LPBoost solves is as a linear program with infinitely many variables. The primal linear program of LPBoost, optimizing over the non-negative weight vector α {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {\alpha }}} , the non-negative vector ξ {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {\xi }}} of slack variables and the margin ρ {\displaystyle \rho } is the following. min α , ξ , ρ − ρ + D ∑ n = 1 ℓ ξ n sb.t. ∑ ω ∈ Ω y n α ω h ( x n ; ω ) + ξ n ≥ ρ , n = 1 , … , ℓ , ∑ ω ∈ Ω α ω = 1 , ξ n ≥ 0 , n = 1 , … , ℓ , α ω ≥ 0 , ω ∈ Ω , ρ ∈ R . {\displaystyle {\begin{array}{cl}{\underset {{\boldsymbol {\alpha }},{\boldsymbol {\xi }},\rho }{\min }}&-\rho +D\sum _{n=1}^{\ell }\xi _{n}\\{\textrm {sb.t.}}&\sum _{\omega \in \Omega }y_{n}\alpha _{\omega }h({\boldsymbol {x}}_{n};\omega )+\xi _{n}\geq \rho ,\qquad n=1,\dots ,\ell ,\\&\sum _{\omega \in \Omega }\alpha _{\omega }=1,\\&\xi _{n}\geq 0,\qquad n=1,\dots ,\ell ,\\&\alpha _{\omega }\geq 0,\qquad \omega \in \Omega ,\\&\rho \in {\mathbb {R} }.\end{array}}} Note the effects of slack variables ξ ≥ 0 {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {\xi }}\geq 0} : their one-norm is penalized in the objective function by a constant factor D {\displaystyle D} , which—if small enough—always leads to a primal feasible linear program. Here we adopted the notation of a parameter space Ω {\displaystyle \Omega } , such that for a choice ω ∈ Ω {\displaystyle \omega \in \Omega } the weak classifier h ( ⋅ ; ω ) : X → { − 1 , 1 } {\displaystyle h(\cdot ;\omega ):{\mathcal {X}}\to \{-1,1\}} is uniquely defined. When the above linear program was first written down in early publications about boosting methods it was disregarded as intractable due to the large number of variables α {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {\alpha }}} . Only later it was discovered that such linear programs can indeed be solved efficiently using the classic technique of column generation. === Column generation for LPBoost === In a linear program a column corresponds to a primal variable. Column generation is a technique to solve large linear programs. It typically works in a restricted problem, dealing only with a subset of variables. By generating primal variables iteratively and on-demand, eventually the original unrestricted problem with all variables is recovered. By cleverly choosing the columns to generate the problem can be solved such that while still guaranteeing the obtained solution to be optimal for the original full problem, only a small fraction of columns has to be created. ==== LPBoost dual problem ==== Columns in the primal linear program corresponds to rows in the dual linear program. The equivalent dual linear program of LPBoost is the following linear program. max λ , γ γ sb.t. ∑ n = 1 ℓ y n h ( x n ; ω ) λ n + γ ≤ 0 , ω ∈ Ω , 0 ≤ λ n ≤ D , n = 1 , … , ℓ , ∑ n = 1 ℓ λ n = 1 , γ ∈ R . {\displaystyle {\begin{array}{cl}{\underset {{\boldsymbol {\lambda }},\gamma }{\max }}&\gamma \\{\textrm {sb.t.}}&\sum _{n=1}^{\ell }y_{n}h({\boldsymbol {x}}_{n};\omega )\lambda _{n}+\gamma \leq 0,\qquad \omega \in \Omega ,\\&0\leq \lambda _{n}\leq D,\qquad n=1,\dots ,\ell ,\\&\sum _{n=1}^{\ell }\lambda _{n}=1,\\&\gamma \in \mathbb {R} .\end{array}}} For linear programs the optimal value of the primal and dual problem are equal. For the above primal and dual problems, the optimal value is equal to the negative 'soft margin'. The soft margin is the size of the margin separating positive from negative training instances minus positive slack variables that carry penalties for margin-violating samples. Thus, the soft margin may be positive although not all samples are linearly separated by the classification function. The latter is called the 'hard margin' or 'realized margin'. ==== Convergence criterion ==== Consider a subset of the satisfied constraints in the dual problem. For any finite subset we can solve the linear program and thus satisfy all constraints. If we could prove that of all the constraints which we did not add to the dual problem no single constraint is violated, we would have proven that solving our restricted problem is equivalent to solving the original problem. More formally, let γ ∗ {\displaystyle \gamma ^{}} be the optimal objective function value for any restricted instance. Then, we can formulate a search problem for the 'most violated constraint' in the original problem space, namely finding ω ∗ ∈ Ω {\displaystyle \omega ^{}\in \Omega } as ω ∗ = argmax ω ∈ Ω ∑ n = 1 ℓ y n h ( x n ; ω ) λ n . {\displaystyle \omega ^{}={\underset {\omega \in \Omega }{\textrm {argmax}}}\sum _{n=1}^{\ell }y_{n}h({\boldsymbol {x}}_{n};\omega )\lambda _{n}.} That is, we search the space H {\displaystyle {\mathcal {H}}} for a single decision stump h ( ⋅ ; ω ∗ ) {\displaystyle h(\cdot ;\omega ^{})} maximizing the left hand side of the dual constraint. If the constraint cannot be violated by any choice of decision stump, none of the corresponding constraint can be active in the original problem and the restricted problem is equivalent. ==== Penalization constant ==== D {\displaystyle D} The positive value of penalization constant D {\displaystyle D} has to be found using model selection techniques. However, if we choose D = 1 ℓ ν {\displaystyle D={\frac {1}{\ell \nu }}} , where ℓ {\displaystyle \ell } is the number of training samples and 0 < ν < 1 {\displaystyle 0<\nu <1} , then the new parameter ν {\displaystyle \nu } has the following properties. ν {\displaystyle \nu } is an upper bound on the fraction of training errors; that is, if k {\displaystyle k} denotes the number of misclassified training samples, then k ℓ ≤ ν {\displaystyle {\frac {k}{\ell }}\leq \nu } . ν {\displaystyle \nu } is a lower bound on the fraction of training samples outside or on the margin. == Algorithm == Input: Training set X = { x 1 , … , x ℓ } {\displaystyle X=\{{\boldsymbol {x}}_{1},\dots ,{\boldsymbol {x}}_{\ell }\}} , x i ∈ X {\displaystyle {\boldsymbol {x}}_{i}\in {\mathcal {X}}} Training labels Y = { y 1 , … , y ℓ } {\displaystyle Y=\{y_{1},\dots ,y_{\ell }\}} , y i ∈ { − 1 , 1 } {\displaystyle y_{i}\in \{-1,1\}} Convergence threshold θ ≥ 0 {\displaystyle \theta \geq 0} Output: Classification function f : X → { − 1 , 1 } {\displaystyle f:{\mathcal {X}}\to \{-1,1\}} Initialization Weights, uniform λ n ← 1 ℓ , n = 1 , … , ℓ {\displaystyle \lambda _{n}\leftarrow {\frac {1}{\ell }},\quad n=1,\dots ,\ell } Edge γ ← 0 {\displaystyle \gamma \leftarrow 0} Hypothesis count J ← 1 {\displaystyle J\leftarrow 1} Iterate h ^ ← argmax ω ∈ Ω ∑ n = 1 ℓ y n h ( x n ; ω ) λ n {\displaystyle {\hat {h}}\leftarrow {\underset {\omega \in \Omega }{\textrm {argmax}}}\sum _{n=1}^{\ell }y_{n}h({\boldsymbol {x}}_{n};\omega )\lambda _{n}} if ∑ n = 1 ℓ y n h ^ ( x n ) λ n + γ ≤ θ {\displaystyle \sum _{n=1}^{\ell }y_{n}{\hat {h}}({\boldsymbol {x}}_{n})\lambda _{n}+\gamma \leq \theta } then break h J ← h ^ {\displaystyle h_{J}\leftarrow {\hat {h}}} J