Asian Digital Finance Forum & Awards (also known as Asian Digital Finance Forum and Awards) is a forum and honorary awards platform convened in Colombo, Sri Lanka. It has been hosted in a hybrid format (virtual and in-person), with editions reported in 2022, 2023 and 2025. The event is organised by the Asian FinTech Academy (AFTA) in collaboration with a number of local and international institutions. == Overview == The forum has featured international academic, industry, and policy speakers and has recognised institutions and individuals for contributions related to digital finance and fintech innovation. Media coverage has described participation and recognition at the forum as spanning multiple regions, with institutions and individuals from South Asia, Southeast Asia, East Asia, the Middle East, Europe, and North America featured across different editions. == Awards and recognition == The forum and awards were held in a hybrid format with virtual and in-person proceedings at Hilton Colombo in the 2022 and 2023 editions. The Asian Digital Finance Forum & Awards presents honorary recognitions to institutions and individuals for contributions to digital finance, financial inclusion, and related regulatory, technological, and policy developments. Media coverage has described the recognitions as non-competitive and based on demonstrated leadership and impact rather than open nominations. In 2025, the forum and awards served as an anchor initiative associated with the Asia International Digital Economy & AI in Finance Summit at Port City Colombo, with an emphasis on artificial intelligence in finance, financial inclusion, and governance-related themes. === 2022 === According to reporting by Daily FT, institutions recognised at the 2022 edition included Sri Lanka’s Bank of Ceylon, Commercial Bank of Ceylon, Hatton National Bank, and People’s Bank, alongside international organisations and fintech-sector contributors. === 2023 === Coverage of the 2023 forum described recognitions awarded to India’s International Financial Services Centres Authority (IFSCA) for regulatory innovation, as well as to digital finance and payments platforms including Dialog Genie and SLT-Mobitel mCash. IDEMIA’s Asia–Pacific operations were also recognised for contributions related to biometric and digital identity technologies in financial services. === 2025 === For the 2025 edition, institutional honourees reported in the media included Nium (Singapore), recognised for cross-border payments optimisation, and Paytm (India), recognised for AI-powered financial inclusion initiatives. A Visionary Award for Next-Generation Financial Hub Development was presented to Port City Colombo in recognition of its fintech- and AI-oriented development strategy. Individual honourees reported for 2025 included Sopnendu Mohanty (Singapore), Neil Tan (Hong Kong), Purvi Munot (United Arab Emirates), and Amira Abdelaziz (Egypt), recognised for contributions spanning fintech governance, ecosystem development, inclusive wealth technology, and AI-driven financial policy and regulation. In 2025, media reports described the awards as being subject to an independent validation framework. The process was led by Dr. Sivaguru S. Sritharan, appointed as Global Validation Chair, and involved independent research, analytical review, and benchmarking against international standards, with recognitions characterised as honorary and non-competitive.
Programming tool
A programming tool or software development tool is a computer program that is used to develop another computer program, usually by helping the developer manage computer files. For example, a programmer may use a tool called a source code editor to edit source code files, and then a compiler to convert the source code into machine code files. They may also use build tools that automatically package executable program and data files into shareable packages or install kits. A set of tools that are run one after another, with each tool feeding its output to the next one, is called a toolchain. An integrated development environment (IDE) integrates the function of several tools into a single program. Usually, an IDE provides a source code editor as well as other built-in or plug-in tools that help with compiling, debugging, and testing. Whether a program is considered a development tool can be subjective. Some programs, such as the GNU compiler collection, are used exclusively for software development while others, such as Notepad, are not meant specifically for development but are nevertheless often used for programming. == Categories == Notable categories of development tools: Assembler – Converts assembly language into machine code Bug tracking system – Software application that records software bugs Build automation – Building software via an unattended fashion Code review software – Activity where one or more people check a program's code Compiler – Software that translates code from one programming language to another Compiler-compiler – Program that generates parsers or compilers, a.k.a. parser generator Debugger – Software for debugging a computer program Decompiler – Program translating executable to source code Disassembler – Computer program to translate machine language into assembly language Documentation generator – Automation technology for creating software documentation Graphical user interface builder – Software development tool Linker – Program that combines intermediate build files into an executable file Loader – Loads executable files into memory and prepares them for execution by the CPU. Memory debugger – Software memory problem finder Minifier – Removal of unnecessary characters in code without changing its functionality Pretty-printer – Formatting to make code or markup easier to readPages displaying short descriptions of redirect targets Performance profiler – Measuring the time or resources used by a section of a computer program Static code analyzer – Analysis of computer programs without executing themPages displaying short descriptions of redirect targets Source code editor – Text editor specializing in software codePages displaying short descriptions of redirect targets Source code generation – Type of computer programmingPages displaying short descriptions of redirect targets Version control system – Stores and tracks versions of files
Iris flower data set
The Iris flower data set or Fisher's Iris data set is a multivariate data set used and made famous by the British statistician and biologist Ronald Fisher in his 1936 paper The use of multiple measurements in taxonomic problems as an example of linear discriminant analysis. It is sometimes called Anderson's Iris data set because Edgar Anderson collected the data to quantify the morphologic variation of Iris flowers of three related species. Two of the three species were collected in the Gaspé Peninsula "all from the same pasture, and picked on the same day and measured at the same time by the same person with the same apparatus". The data set consists of 50 samples from each of three species of Iris (Iris setosa, Iris virginica and Iris versicolor). Four features were measured from each sample: the length and the width of the sepals and petals, in centimeters. Based on the combination of these four features, Fisher developed a linear discriminant model to distinguish each species. Fisher's paper was published in the Annals of Eugenics (today the Annals of Human Genetics). == Use of the data set == Originally used as an example data set on which Fisher's linear discriminant analysis was applied, it became a typical test case for many statistical classification techniques in machine learning such as support vector machines. The use of this data set in cluster analysis however is not common, since the data set only contains two clusters with rather obvious separation. One of the clusters contains Iris setosa, while the other cluster contains both Iris virginica and Iris versicolor and is not separable without the species information Fisher used. This makes the data set a good example to explain the difference between supervised and unsupervised techniques in data mining: Fisher's linear discriminant model can only be obtained when the object species are known: class labels and clusters are not necessarily the same. Nevertheless, all three species of Iris are separable in the projection on the nonlinear and branching principal component. The data set is approximated by the closest tree with some penalty for the excessive number of nodes, bending and stretching. Then the so-called "metro map" is constructed. The data points are projected into the closest node. For each node the pie diagram of the projected points is prepared. The area of the pie is proportional to the number of the projected points. It is clear from the diagram (left) that the absolute majority of the samples of the different Iris species belong to the different nodes. Only a small fraction of Iris-virginica is mixed with Iris-versicolor (the mixed blue-green nodes in the diagram). Therefore, the three species of Iris (Iris setosa, Iris virginica and Iris versicolor) are separable by the unsupervising procedures of nonlinear principal component analysis. To discriminate them, it is sufficient just to select the corresponding nodes on the principal tree. == Data set == The data set contains a set of 150 records under five attributes: sepal length, sepal width, petal length, petal width and species. The iris data set is widely used as a beginner's data set for machine learning purposes. The data set is included in R base and Python in the machine learning library scikit-learn, so that users can access it without having to find a source for it. Several versions of the data set have been published. === R code illustrating usage === The example R code shown below reproduce the scatterplot displayed at the top of this article: === Python code illustrating usage === This code gives:
K-nearest neighbors algorithm
In statistics, the k-nearest neighbors algorithm (k-NN) is a non-parametric supervised learning method. It was first developed by Evelyn Fix and Joseph Hodges in 1951, and later expanded by Thomas Cover. In classification, a new example is assigned a label based on the labels of its k nearest training examples; in regression, the prediction is computed from the values of those neighbors. Most often, it is used for classification, as a k-NN classifier, the output of which is a class membership. An object is classified by a plurality vote of its neighbors, with the object being assigned to the class most common among its k nearest neighbors (k is a positive integer, typically small). If k = 1, then the object is simply assigned to the class of that single nearest neighbor. The k-NN algorithm can also be generalized for regression. In k-NN regression, also known as nearest neighbor smoothing, the output is the property value for the object. This value is the average of the values of k nearest neighbors. If k = 1, then the output is simply assigned to the value of that single nearest neighbor, also known as nearest neighbor interpolation. For both classification and regression, a useful technique can be to assign weights to the contributions of the neighbors, so that nearer neighbors contribute more to the average than distant ones. For example, a common weighting scheme consists of giving each neighbor a weight of 1/d, where d is the distance to the neighbor. The input consists of the k closest training examples in a data set. The neighbors are taken from a set of objects for which the class (for k-NN classification) or the object property value (for k-NN regression) is known. This can be thought of as the training set for the algorithm, though no explicit training step is required. A peculiarity (sometimes even a disadvantage) of the k-NN algorithm is its sensitivity to the local structure of the data. In k-NN classification the function is only approximated locally and all computation is deferred until function evaluation. Since this algorithm relies on distance, if the features represent different physical units or come in vastly different scales, then feature-wise normalizing of the training data can greatly improve its accuracy. == Statistical setting == Suppose we have pairs ( X 1 , Y 1 ) , ( X 2 , Y 2 ) , … , ( X n , Y n ) {\displaystyle (X_{1},Y_{1}),(X_{2},Y_{2}),\dots ,(X_{n},Y_{n})} taking values in R d × { 1 , 2 } {\displaystyle \mathbb {R} ^{d}\times \{1,2\}} , where Y is the class label of X, so that X | Y = r ∼ P r {\displaystyle X|Y=r\sim P_{r}} for r = 1 , 2 {\displaystyle r=1,2} (and probability distributions P r {\displaystyle P_{r}} ). Given some norm ‖ ⋅ ‖ {\displaystyle \|\cdot \|} on R d {\displaystyle \mathbb {R} ^{d}} and a point x ∈ R d {\displaystyle x\in \mathbb {R} ^{d}} , let ( X ( 1 ) , Y ( 1 ) ) , … , ( X ( n ) , Y ( n ) ) {\displaystyle (X_{(1)},Y_{(1)}),\dots ,(X_{(n)},Y_{(n)})} be a reordering of the training data such that ‖ X ( 1 ) − x ‖ ≤ ⋯ ≤ ‖ X ( n ) − x ‖ {\displaystyle \|X_{(1)}-x\|\leq \dots \leq \|X_{(n)}-x\|} . == Algorithm == The training examples are vectors in a multidimensional feature space, each with a class label. The training phase of the algorithm consists only of storing the feature vectors and class labels of the training samples. In the classification phase, k is a user-defined constant, and an unlabeled vector (a query or test point) is classified by assigning the label which is most frequent among the k training samples nearest to that query point. A commonly used distance metric for continuous variables is Euclidean distance. For discrete variables, such as for text classification, another metric can be used, such as the overlap metric (or Hamming distance). In the context of gene expression microarray data, for example, k-NN has been employed with correlation coefficients, such as Pearson and Spearman, as a metric. Often, the classification accuracy of k-NN can be improved significantly if the distance metric is learned with specialized algorithms such as large margin nearest neighbor or neighborhood components analysis. A drawback of the basic "majority voting" classification occurs when the class distribution is skewed. That is, examples of a more frequent class tend to dominate the prediction of the new example, because they tend to be common among the k nearest neighbors due to their large number. One way to overcome this problem is to weight the classification, taking into account the distance from the test point to each of its k nearest neighbors. The class (or value, in regression problems) of each of the k nearest points is multiplied by a weight proportional to the inverse of the distance from that point to the test point. Another way to overcome skew is by abstraction in data representation. For example, in a self-organizing map (SOM), each node is a representative (a center) of a cluster of similar points, regardless of their density in the original training data. k-NN can then be applied to the SOM. == Parameter selection == The best choice of k depends upon the data; generally, larger values of k reduces effect of the noise on the classification, but make boundaries between classes less distinct. A good k can be selected by various heuristic techniques (see hyperparameter optimization). The special case where the class is predicted to be the class of the closest training sample (i.e. when k = 1) is called the nearest neighbor algorithm. The accuracy of the k-NN algorithm can be severely degraded by the presence of noisy or irrelevant features, or if the feature scales are not consistent with their importance. Much research effort has been put into selecting or scaling features to improve classification. A particularly popular approach is the use of evolutionary algorithms to optimize feature scaling. Another popular approach is to scale features by the mutual information of the training data with the training classes. In binary (two class) classification problems, it is helpful to choose k to be an odd number as this avoids tied votes. One popular way of choosing the empirically optimal k in this setting is via bootstrap method. == The 1-nearest neighbor classifier == The most intuitive nearest neighbour type classifier is the one nearest neighbour classifier that assigns a point x to the class of its closest neighbour in the feature space, that is C n 1 n n ( x ) = Y ( 1 ) {\displaystyle C_{n}^{1nn}(x)=Y_{(1)}} . As the size of training data set approaches infinity, the one nearest neighbour classifier guarantees an error rate of no worse than twice the Bayes error rate (the minimum achievable error rate given the distribution of the data). == The weighted nearest neighbour classifier == The k-nearest neighbour classifier can be viewed as assigning the k nearest neighbours a weight 1 / k {\displaystyle 1/k} and all others 0 weight. This can be generalised to weighted nearest neighbour classifiers. That is, where the ith nearest neighbour is assigned a weight w n i {\displaystyle w_{ni}} , with ∑ i = 1 n w n i = 1 {\textstyle \sum _{i=1}^{n}w_{ni}=1} . An analogous result on the strong consistency of weighted nearest neighbour classifiers also holds. Let C n w n n {\displaystyle C_{n}^{wnn}} denote the weighted nearest classifier with weights { w n i } i = 1 n {\displaystyle \{w_{ni}\}_{i=1}^{n}} . Subject to regularity conditions, which in asymptotic theory are conditional variables which require assumptions to differentiate among parameters with some criteria. On the class distributions the excess risk has the following asymptotic expansion R R ( C n w n n ) − R R ( C Bayes ) = ( B 1 s n 2 + B 2 t n 2 ) { 1 + o ( 1 ) } , {\displaystyle {\mathcal {R}}_{\mathcal {R}}(C_{n}^{wnn})-{\mathcal {R}}_{\mathcal {R}}(C^{\text{Bayes}})=\left(B_{1}s_{n}^{2}+B_{2}t_{n}^{2}\right)\{1+o(1)\},} for constants B 1 {\displaystyle B_{1}} and B 2 {\displaystyle B_{2}} where s n 2 = ∑ i = 1 n w n i 2 {\displaystyle s_{n}^{2}=\sum _{i=1}^{n}w_{ni}^{2}} and t n = n − 2 / d ∑ i = 1 n w n i { i 1 + 2 / d − ( i − 1 ) 1 + 2 / d } {\displaystyle t_{n}=n^{-2/d}\sum _{i=1}^{n}w_{ni}\left\{i^{1+2/d}-(i-1)^{1+2/d}\right\}} . The optimal weighting scheme { w n i ∗ } i = 1 n {\displaystyle \{w_{ni}^{}\}_{i=1}^{n}} , that balances the two terms in the display above, is given as follows: set k ∗ = ⌊ B n 4 d + 4 ⌋ {\displaystyle k^{}=\lfloor Bn^{\frac {4}{d+4}}\rfloor } , w n i ∗ = 1 k ∗ [ 1 + d 2 − d 2 k ∗ 2 / d { i 1 + 2 / d − ( i − 1 ) 1 + 2 / d } ] {\displaystyle w_{ni}^{}={\frac {1}{k^{}}}\left[1+{\frac {d}{2}}-{\frac {d}{2{k^{}}^{2/d}}}\{i^{1+2/d}-(i-1)^{1+2/d}\}\right]} for i = 1 , 2 , … , k ∗ {\displaystyle i=1,2,\dots ,k^{}} and w n i ∗ = 0 {\displaystyle w_{ni}^{}=0} for i = k ∗ + 1 , … , n {\displaystyle i=k^{}+1,\dots ,n} . With optimal weights the dominant term in the asymptotic expansion of the excess risk is O ( n − 4 d + 4 ) {\displaystyle {\mathcal {O}}(n^{-{\frac {4}{d+4}}})}
Causal Markov condition
The Causal Markov (CM) condition states that, conditional on the set of all its direct causes, a node is independent of all variables which are not effects or direct causes of that node. In the event that the structure of a Bayesian network accurately depicts causality, the two conditions are equivalent. This is related to the Markov condition, an assumption made in Bayesian probability theory, that every node in a Bayesian network is conditionally independent of its nondescendants, given its parents. Stated loosely, it is assumed that a node has no bearing on nodes which do not descend from it. In a DAG, this local Markov condition is equivalent to the global Markov condition, which states that d-separations in the graph also correspond to conditional independence relations. This also means that a node is conditionally independent of the entire network, given its Markov blanket. A network may accurately embody the Markov condition without depicting causality, in which case it should not be assumed to embody the causal Markov condition. == Motivation == Statisticians are enormously interested in the ways in which certain events and variables are connected. The precise notion of what constitutes a cause and effect is necessary to understand the connections between them. The central idea behind the philosophical study of probabilistic causation is that causes raise the probabilities of their effects, all else being equal. A deterministic interpretation of causation means that if A causes B, then A must always be followed by B. In this sense, smoking does not cause cancer because some smokers never develop cancer. On the other hand, a probabilistic interpretation simply means that causes raise the probability of their effects. In this sense, changes in meteorological readings associated with a storm do cause that storm, since they raise its probability. (However, simply looking at a barometer does not change the probability of the storm, for a more detailed analysis, see:). == Examples == In a simple view, releasing one's hand from a hammer causes the hammer to fall. However, doing so in outer space does not produce the same outcome, calling into question if releasing one's fingers from a hammer always causes it to fall. A causal graph could be created to acknowledge that both the presence of gravity and the release of the hammer contribute to its falling. However, it would be very surprising if the surface underneath the hammer affected its falling. This essentially states the Causal Markov Condition, that given the existence of gravity the release of the hammer, it will fall regardless of what is beneath it. == Implications == === Dependence and Causation === It follows from the definition that if X and Y are in V and are probabilistically dependent, then either X causes Y, Y causes X, or X and Y are both effects of some common cause Z in V. This definition was seminally introduced by Hans Reichenbach as the Common Cause Principle (CCP). === Screening === It once again follows from the definition that the parents of X screen X from other "indirect causes" of X (parents of Parents(X)) and other effects of Parents(X) which are not also effects of X.
Lynda Soderholm
Lynda Soderholm is a physical chemist at the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Argonne National Laboratory with a specialty in f-block elements. She is a senior scientist and the lead of the Actinide, Geochemistry & Separation Sciences Theme within Argonne's Chemical Sciences and Engineering Division. Her specific role is the Separation Science group leader within Heavy Element Chemistry and Separation Science (HESS), directing basic research focused on low-energy methods for isolating lanthanide and actinide elements from complex mixtures. She has made fundamental contributions to understanding f-block chemistry and characterizing f-block elements. Soderholm became a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) in 2013, and is also an Argonne Distinguished Fellow. == Early life and education == Soderholm was awarded her PhD in 1982 by McMaster University under the direction of Prof John Greedan. Her dissertation focused on characterizing the structural and magnetic properties of a series of ternary f-ion oxides. After graduating, she was awarded a NATO postdoctoral fellow at the Centre national de la recherche scientifique in France from 1982 until 1985. After a short postdoctoral appointment as an Argonne postdoctoral fellow she was promoted to staff scientist the same year. Over several years, she moved up the ranks, becoming a senior chemist in 2001. She was also an adjunct professor at the University of Notre Dame from 2003 until 2007. In 2021, Soderholm was appointed interim Division Director for the Chemical Sciences and Engineering Division. == Career and research == === Uncovering structure of Yttrium-123 Superconductor === Early in her career, Soderholm focused on the characterizing the magnetic and electronic behavior of compounds containing f-ions (lanthanides and actinides) with a focus on high-Tc materials, compounds that are superconducting under usually high temperatures. She was part of the research group that first determined the structure of YBa2Cu3O7. Their discovery formed the foundation for the further developments in the broad field of superconductivity. === Understanding f-ion speciation in solution === Continuing her interest in the f-elements, Soderholm shifted her focus from solid-state materials to nanoparticles and solutions, taking advantage of advances in X-ray structural probes made available by synchrotron facilities. Building on her earlier work using neutron scattering, her team became the first to discover that plutonium exists in solution as tiny, well-defined nanoparticles. This work solved a longstanding problem in understanding transport of plutonium in the environment and resulted in the development of a new, patented approach to separating plutonium during nuclear reprocessing. === Using machine learning to evaluate molecular structures === Soderholm's more recent projects use machine learning to understand the influence of complex molecular structuring in solutions, in connection with low-energy processes for separation of f-block elements from complex mixtures. == Awards and honors == University of Chicago Board of Governors' Distinguished Performance Award, 2009. Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, 2013. Argonne Distinguished Fellow, 2016 DOE materials sciences research competition for Outstanding Scientific Accomplishments in Solid State Physics, 1987. == Select publications == Beno, M. A.; Soderholm, L.; Capone, D. W., II; Hinks, D. G.; Jorgensen, J. D.; Grace, J. D.; Schuller, I. K.; Segre, C. U.; Zhang, K., Structure of the single-phase high-temperature superconductor yttrium barium copper oxide (YBa2Cu3O7−δ). Appl. Phys. Lett. 1987, 51 (1), 57–9. Soderholm, L.; Zhang, K.; Hinks, D. G.; Beno, M. A.; Jorgensen, J. D.; Segre, C. U.; Schuller, I. K., Incorporation of praseodymium in YBa2Cu3O7−δ: electronic effects on superconductivity. Nature (London) 1987, 328 (6131), 604–5. Antonio, M. R.; Williams, C. W.; Soderholm, L., Berkelium redox speciation. Radiochim. Acta 2002, 90 (12), 851–856. Soderholm, L.; Skanthakumar, S.; Neuefeind, J., Determination of actinide speciation in solution using high-energy X-ray scattering. Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 2005, 383 (1), 48–55. Forbes, T. Z.; Burns, P. C.; Skanthakumar, S.; Soderholm, L., Synthesis, structure, and magnetism of Np2O5. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2007, 129 (10), 2760–2761. Soderholm, L.; Almond, P. M.; Skanthakumar, S.; Wilson, R. E.; Burns, P. C., The structure of the plutonium oxide nanocluster [Pu38O56Cl54(H2O)8]14-. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2008, 47 (2), 298–302. Jensen, M. P.; Gorman-Lewis, D.; Aryal, B.; Paunesku, T.; Vogt, S.; Rickert, P. G.; Seifert, S.; Lai, B.; Woloschak, G. E.; Soderholm, L., An iron-dependent and transferrin-mediated cellular uptake pathway for plutonium. Nat. Chem. Biol. 2011, 7 (8), 560–565. Wilson, R. E.; Skanthakumar, S.; Soderholm, L., Separation of Plutonium Oxide Nanoparticles and Colloids. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2011, 50 (47), 11234–11237. Knope, K. E.; Soderholm, L., Solution and solid-state structural chemistry of actinide hydrates and their hydrolysis and condensation products. Chem. Rev. 2013, 113 (2), 944–994. Luo, G.; Bu, W.; Mihaylov, M.; Kuzmenko, I.; Schlossman, M. L.; Soderholm, L., X-ray reflectivity reveals a nonmonotonic ion-density profile perpendicular to the surface of ErCl3 aqueous solutions. J. Phys. Chem. C 2013, 117 (37), 19082–19090. Jin, G. B.; Lin, J.; Estes, S. L.; Skanthakumar, S.; Soderholm, L., Influence of countercation hydration enthalpies on the formation of molecular complexes: A thorium-nitrate example. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2017, 139 (49), 18003–18008. == Patents == Solvent extraction system for plutonium colloids and other oxide nano-particles, (2016).
Randomized weighted majority algorithm
The randomized weighted majority algorithm is an algorithm in machine learning theory for aggregating expert predictions to a series of decision problems. It is a simple and effective method based on weighted voting which improves on the mistake bound of the deterministic weighted majority algorithm. In fact, in the limit, its prediction rate can be arbitrarily close to that of the best-predicting expert. == Example == Imagine that every morning before the stock market opens, we get a prediction from each of our "experts" about whether the stock market will go up or down. Our goal is to somehow combine this set of predictions into a single prediction that we then use to make a buy or sell decision for the day. The principal challenge is that we do not know which experts will give better or worse predictions. The RWMA gives us a way to do this combination such that our prediction record will be nearly as good as that of the single expert which, in hindsight, gave the most accurate predictions. == Motivation == In machine learning, the weighted majority algorithm (WMA) is a deterministic meta-learning algorithm for aggregating expert predictions. In pseudocode, the WMA is as follows: initialize all experts to weight 1 for each round: add each expert's weight to the option they predicted predict the option with the largest weighted sum multiply the weights of all experts who predicted wrongly by 1 2 {\displaystyle {\frac {1}{2}}} Suppose there are n {\displaystyle n} experts and the best expert makes m {\displaystyle m} mistakes. Then, the weighted majority algorithm (WMA) makes at most 2.4 ( log 2 n + m ) {\displaystyle 2.4(\log _{2}n+m)} mistakes. This bound is highly problematic in the case of highly error-prone experts. Suppose, for example, the best expert makes a mistake 20% of the time; that is, in N = 100 {\displaystyle N=100} rounds using n = 10 {\displaystyle n=10} experts, the best expert makes m = 20 {\displaystyle m=20} mistakes. Then, the weighted majority algorithm only guarantees an upper bound of 2.4 ( log 2 10 + 20 ) ≈ 56 {\displaystyle 2.4(\log _{2}10+20)\approx 56} mistakes. As this is a known limitation of the weighted majority algorithm, various strategies have been explored in order to improve the dependence on m {\displaystyle m} . In particular, we can do better by introducing randomization. Drawing inspiration from the Multiplicative Weights Update Method algorithm, we will probabilistically make predictions based on how the experts have performed in the past. Similarly to the WMA, every time an expert makes a wrong prediction, we will decrement their weight. Mirroring the MWUM, we will then use the weights to make a probability distribution over the actions and draw our action from this distribution (instead of deterministically picking the majority vote as the WMA does). == Randomized weighted majority algorithm (RWMA) == The randomized weighted majority algorithm is an attempt to improve the dependence of the mistake bound of the WMA on m {\displaystyle m} . Instead of predicting based on majority vote, the weights, are used as probabilities for choosing the experts in each round and are updated over time (hence the name randomized weighted majority). Precisely, if w i {\displaystyle w_{i}} is the weight of expert i {\displaystyle i} , let W = ∑ i w i {\displaystyle W=\sum _{i}w_{i}} . We will follow expert i {\displaystyle i} with probability w i W {\displaystyle {\frac {w_{i}}{W}}} . This results in the following algorithm: initialize all experts to weight 1. for each round: add all experts' weights together to obtain the total weight W {\displaystyle W} choose expert i {\displaystyle i} randomly with probability w i W {\displaystyle {\frac {w_{i}}{W}}} predict as the chosen expert predicts multiply the weights of all experts who predicted wrongly by β {\displaystyle \beta } The goal is to bound the worst-case expected number of mistakes, assuming that the adversary has to select one of the answers as correct before we make our coin toss. This is a reasonable assumption in, for instance, the stock market example provided above: the variance of a stock price should not depend on the opinions of experts that influence private buy or sell decisions, so we can treat the price change as if it was decided before the experts gave their recommendations for the day. The randomized algorithm is better in the worst case than the deterministic algorithm (weighted majority algorithm): in the latter, the worst case was when the weights were split 50/50. But in the randomized version, since the weights are used as probabilities, there would still be a 50/50 chance of getting it right. In addition, generalizing to multiplying the weights of the incorrect experts by β < 1 {\displaystyle \beta <1} instead of strictly 1 2 {\displaystyle {\frac {1}{2}}} allows us to trade off between dependence on m {\displaystyle m} and log 2 n {\displaystyle \log _{2}n} . This trade-off will be quantified in the analysis section. == Analysis == Let W t {\displaystyle W_{t}} denote the total weight of all experts at round t {\displaystyle t} . Also let F t {\displaystyle F_{t}} denote the fraction of weight placed on experts which predict the wrong answer at round t {\displaystyle t} . Finally, let N {\displaystyle N} be the total number of rounds in the process. By definition, F t {\displaystyle F_{t}} is the probability that the algorithm makes a mistake on round t {\displaystyle t} . It follows from the linearity of expectation that if M {\displaystyle M} denotes the total number of mistakes made during the entire process, E [ M ] = ∑ t = 1 N F t {\displaystyle E[M]=\sum _{t=1}^{N}F_{t}} . After round t {\displaystyle t} , the total weight is decreased by ( 1 − β ) F t W t {\displaystyle \ (1-\beta )F_{t}W_{t}} , since all weights corresponding to a wrong answer are multiplied by β < 1 {\displaystyle \ \beta <1} . It then follows that W t + 1 = W t ( 1 − ( 1 − β ) F t ) {\displaystyle W_{t+1}=W_{t}(1-(1-\beta )F_{t})} . By telescoping, since W 1 = n {\displaystyle W_{1}=n} , it follows that the total weight after the process concludes is On the other hand, suppose that m {\displaystyle \ m} is the number of mistakes made by the best-performing expert. At the end, this expert has weight β m {\displaystyle \ \beta ^{m}} . It follows, then, that the total weight is at least this much; in other words, W ≥ β m {\displaystyle \ W\geq \beta ^{m}} . This inequality and the above result imply Taking the natural logarithm of both sides yields Now, the Taylor series of the natural logarithm is In particular, it follows that ln ( 1 − ( 1 − β ) F t ) < − ( 1 − β ) F t {\displaystyle \ \ln(1-(1-\beta )F_{t})<-(1-\beta )F_{t}} . Thus, Recalling that E [ M ] = ∑ t = 1 N F t {\displaystyle E[M]=\sum _{t=1}^{N}F_{t}} and rearranging, it follows that Now, as β → 1 {\displaystyle \beta \to 1} from below, the first constant tends to 1 {\displaystyle 1} ; however, the second constant tends to + ∞ {\displaystyle +\infty } . To quantify this tradeoff, define ε = 1 − β {\displaystyle \varepsilon =1-\beta } to be the penalty associated with getting a prediction wrong. Then, again applying the Taylor series of the natural logarithm, It then follows that the mistake bound, for small ε {\displaystyle \varepsilon } , can be written in the form ( 1 + ϵ 2 + O ( ε 2 ) ) m + ϵ − 1 ln ( n ) {\displaystyle \ \left(1+{\frac {\epsilon }{2}}+O(\varepsilon ^{2})\right)m+\epsilon ^{-1}\ln(n)} . In English, the less that we penalize experts for their mistakes, the more that additional experts will lead to initial mistakes but the closer we get to capturing the predictive accuracy of the best expert as time goes on. In particular, given a sufficiently low value of ε {\displaystyle \varepsilon } and enough rounds, the randomized weighted majority algorithm can get arbitrarily close to the correct prediction rate of the best expert. In particular, as long as m {\displaystyle m} is sufficiently large compared to ln ( n ) {\displaystyle \ln(n)} (so that their ratio is sufficiently small), we can assign we can obtain an upper bound on the number of mistakes equal to This implies that the "regret bound" on the algorithm (that is, how much worse it performs than the best expert) is sublinear, at O ( m ln ( n ) ) {\displaystyle O({\sqrt {m\ln(n)}})} . == Revisiting the motivation == Recall that the motivation for the randomized weighted majority algorithm was given by an example where the best expert makes a mistake 20% of the time. Precisely, in N = 100 {\displaystyle N=100} rounds, with n = 10 {\displaystyle n=10} experts, where the best expert makes m = 20 {\displaystyle m=20} mistakes, the deterministic weighted majority algorithm only guarantees an upper bound of 2.4 ( log 2 10 + 20 ) ≈ 56 {\displaystyle 2.4(\log _{2}10+20)\approx 56} . By the analysis above, it follows that minimizing the number of worst-case expected mistakes is equivalent to minimizing the fun