We develop a worst-case analysis of aggregation of classifier ensembles for binary classification. The task of predicting to minimize error is formulated as a game played over a given set of unlabeled data (a transductive setting), where prior label information is encoded as constraints on the game. The minimax solution of this game identifies cases where a weighted combination of the classifiers can perform significantly better than any single classifier.
One of the surprising recurring phenomena observed in experiments with boosting is that the test error of the generated classifier usually does not increase as its size becomes very large, and often is observed to decrease even after the training error reaches zero. In this paper, we show that this phenomenon is related to the distribution of margins of the training examples with respect to the generated voting classification rule, where the margin of an example is simply the difference between the number of correct votes and the maximum number of votes received by any incorrect label. We show that techniques used in the analysis of Vapnik's support vector classifiers and of neural networks with small weights can be applied to voting methods to relate the margin distribution to the test error. We also show theoretically and experimentally that boosting is especially effective at increasing the margins of the training examples. Finally, we compare our explanation to those based on the bias-variance decomposition.