AdaBoost Does Not Always Cycle: A Computer-Assisted Counterexample

arXiv cs.LG / 4/9/2026

📰 NewsIdeas & Deep AnalysisModels & Research

Key Points

  • The paper presents a computer-assisted counterexample to a COLT 2012 open question by Rudin, Schapire, and Daubechies about whether exhaustive AdaBoost must eventually converge to a finite cycle.
  • The construction uses a block-product “gadget” where two components share an exact period-2 orbit in their 5-step branch maps, while their linearized return maps have dominant eigenvalues whose logarithms have an irrational ratio.
  • This irrational eigenvalue-log ratio implies an irrational asymptotic frequency for the resulting burst-winner sequence, which rules out eventual periodicity.
  • The authors state that all claims are certified using exact rational arithmetic, and the announcement notes the work was developed in collaboration with GPT-5.4 Pro and Claude Opus 4.6.

Abstract

We give a computer-assisted counterexample to the open question, posed by Rudin, Schapire, and Daubechies in COLT 2012, of whether exhaustive AdaBoost always converges to a finite cycle. The construction is based on a block-product gadget whose two factors share an exact period-2 orbit for their 5-step branch maps, but whose linearized return maps have dominant eigenvalues with an irrational logarithmic ratio. This irrationality forces the burst-winner sequence to have an irrational asymptotic frequency, precluding eventual periodicity. All assertions are certified by exact rational arithmetic. This work was developed in collaboration with GPT-5.4 Pro and Claude Opus 4.6.