Talk:Sequential minimal optimization

Delete this article?

This article lacks references to published reliable papers. Moreover it doesn't coherently describe anything notable or of interest: The smallest possible QP is the zero QP on the zero vector, which has a constant extension everywhere. Would somebody nominate this for deletion? Thanks Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 13:03, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on, I'll to try the fill the article with some information by tomorrow. The subject of the article is certainly notable - there are many articles and books which describe SMO, e.g. [1], [2]. The reference currently cited is Platt's original paper, and it's well-cited (819 citations on Google Scholar, 165 on CiteSeer), so it's reliable. -- X7q (talk) 13:34, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SMO is an working-set method - at each iteration it optimizes a subset of variables and leaves the rest fixed. "Smallest possible QP problem" means that it chooses the smallest possible number of variables to optimize at each step, but which still allows it to make a progress. And this number is 2, because SVM optimization problem in dual-form has one equality constraint. With no constraints it could optimize one variable (i.e. it'd be basically coordinate descent), but due to an equality contraint it's not allowed to change value of any variable without changing value of some other variable. -- X7q (talk) 13:34, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But I think SMO should be removed from Template:Optimization_algorithms. It's an optimization method for a very specific problem, not a general-purpose QP method. -- X7q (talk) 13:41, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for a quick and helpful response. It sounds like this might be a notable topic, but the article is still a little rough. I think that your suggested improvements should be very helpful. Thanks again, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 13:47, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am still concerned that this article lacks even one reliable secondary reference. All the references are to primary sources, not yet published conventionally. After 5 months, this article should be deleted unless references to reliable secondary literature are provided. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (Discussion) 13:26, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can find many secondary sources in Google book search. -- X7q (talk) 14:31, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While you state that many secondary can be found, the fact is that they are not in there yet. There is no problem with using the papers, as they are acceptable under Wiki guidelines. Secondary would be preferred to support them though. The article will not be deleted unless it is shown that it is factually inaccurate or that sources do not add up to what the article says. I have checked it and can confirm that it is not biased, and seems to be balanced, without WP:FRINGE and without WP:UNDUE. Chaosdruid (talk) 23:15, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]