ArticleScientific reports2025
Comparative analysis of algorithmic approaches in ensemble learning: bagging vs. boosting.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- AI-Driven Design and Comparative Evaluation of SNEDDS for the Optimized Nanoencapsulation of Phytoextracts.Nanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Ensemble learning is widely applied in various real-world settings, with Bagging and Boosting being two core algorithms. Although these techniques have been extensively investigated through experimental comparisons of their performance in various scenarios, few studies have analyzed and quantified their benefits, costs, and complexities to support algorithm-aware decision making. In this study, we develop a theoretical model to compare Bagging and Boosting in terms of performance, computational costs, and ensemble complexity, and validate it through experiments on four datasets (MNIST, CIFAR-10, CIFAR-100, IMDB) with varying data complexity and computational environments. The results show that, for MNIST, as ensemble complexity increases (e.g., from 20 to 200), Bagging's performance improves from 0.932 to 0.933 before plateauing, while Boosting improves from 0.930 to 0.961 before showing signs of overfitting. At the same ensemble complexity, such as 200 base learners, Boosting requires approximately 14 times more computational time than Bagging, indicating substantially higher computational costs. Similar patterns are observed across the other three datasets, confirming the generality of our findings and revealing consistent trade-offs between performance and computational costs. Taken together, these results confirm the robustness of our theoretical predictions and provide a foundation for practical guidance. Specifically, decision-makers prioritizing cost-efficiency may prefer Bagging, whereas those focusing on maximizing performance might find Boosting more beneficial. For simpler datasets on average-performing devices, Boosting can be effective, whereas Bagging is more suitable for complex datasets on high-performing devices. Overall, this study contributes by integrating analytical modeling with empirical validation across multiple datasets to provide theoretical insights and practical guidance. It systematically compares Bagging and Boosting in terms of performance, computational costs, and ensemble complexity, thereby enabling practitioners to choose the most appropriate method under varying data complexities, performance needs, and resource constraints.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.