General Linear Relations among Different Types of Predictive Complexity

  • Yuri Kalnishkan
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 1720)


In this paper we introduce a general method that allows to prove tight linear inequalities between different types of predictive complexity and thus we generalise our previous results. The method relies upon probabilistic considerations and allows to describe (using geometrical terms) the sets of coefficients which correspond to true inequalities. We also apply this method to the square-loss and logarithmic complexity and describe their relations which were not covered by our previous research.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. [1]
    N. Cesa-Bianchi, Y. Freund, D. Haussler, D. P. Helmbold, R. E. Schapire, and M. K. Warmuth. How to use expert advice. Journal of the ACM, (44):427–485, 1997.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. [2]
    A. DeSantis, G. Markowski, and M. N. Weigman. Learning probabilistic prediction functions. In Proceedings of the 1988 Workshop on Computational Learning Theory, pages 312–328, 1988.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    D. Haussler, J. Kivinen, and M. K. Warmuth. Tight worst-case loss bounds for predicting with expert advise. Technical Report UCSC-CRL-94-36, University of California at Santa Cruz, revised December 1994.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    Y. Kalnishkan. Linear relations between square-loss and Kolmogorov complexity. In Proceedings of the Twelfth Annual Conference on Computational Learning Theory, pages 226–232. Association for Computing Machinery, 1999.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    N. Littlestone and M. K. Warmuth. The weighted majority algorithm. Information and Computation, 108:212–261, 1994.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. [6]
    F. A. Valentine. Convex Sets. McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1964.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    V. Vovk. Probability theory for the Brier game. To appear in Theoretical Computer Science. Preliminary version in M. Li and A. Maruoka, editors, Algorithmic Learning Theory, vol. 1316 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 323–338.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    V. Vovk. Aggregating strategies. In M. Fulk and J. Case, editors, Proceedings of the 3rd Annual Workshop on Computational Learning Theory, pages 371–383, San Mateo, CA, 1990. Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    V. Vovk. A game of prediction with expert advice. Journal of Computer and System Sciences, (56):153–173, 1998.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. [10]
    V. Vovk and C. J. H. C. Watkins. Universal portfolio selection. In Proceedings of the 11th Annual Conference on Computational Learning Theory, pages 12–23, 1998.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yuri Kalnishkan
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer Science, Royal HollowayUniversity of LondonEgham, SurreyUK

Personalised recommendations