Cited by 4,600Machine Learning and AlgorithmsMachine Learning and Data ClassificationNeural Networks and Applications

The Strength of Weak Learnability

Open access
Schapire, Robert E.·1990·Machine Learning

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/bf00116037

Cites

31 of 31 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • A combination of many weak learners yields a more powerful predictor than a single strong learner on its own.

    “The general principle behind boosting is that a combination of many weak learners yields a more powerful predictor than a single strong learner on its own (Freund & Schapire, 1997;Schapire, 1990).”

    From Customer price sensitivities in competitive insurance markets (2022) · cites this paper as Schapire, 1990

    Section 3.1, “The hypothesis boosting mechanism” (page unavailable), shows that combining three hypotheses reduces error relative to the original hypothesis; Section 3.2 describes recursively boosting weaker hypotheses. The paper does not claim that the resulting predictor outperforms a single strong learner, so the stated comparator is unsupported. (LLM, conf=0.90)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Boosting is originally described in Schapire (1990) and Freund (1995) for classification problems to improve the performance of a set of weak learners.

    “Boosting is originally described inSchapire (1990) andFreund (1995) for classification problems to improve the performance of a set of weak learners.”

    From Empirical Asset Pricing via Machine Learning (2020) · cites this paper as Schapire (1990)

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Schapire, R. E.
Affiliations
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (US)
Corresponding author
Schapire, Robert E.
Venue
Machine Learning
Published
1990-06
Volume
5
Issue
2
Pages
197-227
ISSN
  • 0885-6125 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-0565
OpenAlex
W2093717447
Cited by
4,600
References
22
Citations by year
2026: 106 · 2025: 211 · 2024: 195 · 2023: 226 · 2022: 226 · 2021: 255 · 2020: 248 · 2019: 257 · 2018: 195 · 2017: 173 · 2016: 173 · 2015: 188 · 2014: 205 · 2013: 197 · 2012: 187
FWCI
8.55
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
Machine Learning (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Siemens USA
  • Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
  • Army Research Office (DAAL03-86-K-0171)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning and Algorithms
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning and Data Classification
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Neural Networks and Applications
Keywords
PAC learning, boosting, distribution-free learning

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review