Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 2,289

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Classifier chains for multi-label classification

Open access
Read, Jesse, Pfahringer, Bernhard, Holmes, Geoff, Frank, Eibe·2011·Machine Learning
DOI 10.1007/s10994-011-5256-5
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The widely known binary relevance method for multi-label classification, which considers each label as an independent binary problem, has often been overlooked in the literature due to the perceived inadequacy of not directly modelling label correlations. Most current methods invest considerable complexity to model interdependencies between labels. This paper shows that binary relevance-based methods have much to offer, and that high predictive performance can be obtained without impeding scalability to large datasets. We exemplify this with a novel classifier chains method that can model label correlations while maintaining acceptable computational complexity. We extend this approach further in an ensemble framework. An extensive empirical evaluation covers a broad range of multi-label datasets with a variety of evaluation metrics. The results illustrate the competitiveness of the chaining method against related and state-of-the-art methods, both in terms of predictive performance and time complexity.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10994-011-5256-5

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 35

  1. Boutell, M. R., Luo, J., Shen, X., & Brown, C. M. (2004). Learning multi-label scene classification. Pattern Recognition, 37(9), 1757–1771. · DOI · Paper page
  2. Cheng, W., & Hüllermeier, E. (2009). Combining instance-based learning and logistic regression for multilabel classification. Machine Learning, 76(2–3), 211–225. doi: 10.1007/s10994-009-5127-5 . · DOI
  3. Cheng, W., Dembczyński, K., & Hüllermeier, E. (2010). Bayes optimal multilabel classification via probabilistic classifier chains. In ICML ’10: 27th international conference on machine learning. Haifa: Omnipress.
  4. Clare, A., & King, R. D. (2001). Lecture notes in computer science: Vol. 2168. Knowledge discovery in multi-label phenotype data.
  5. Dembczyński, K., Waegeman, W., Cheng, W., & Hüllermeier, E. (2010). On label dependence in multi-label classification. In Workshop proceedings of learning from multi-label data (pp. 5–12). Haifa, Israel.
  6. Demšar, J. (2006). Statistical comparisons of classifiers over multiple data sets. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 7, 1–30.
  7. Dimou, A., Tsoumakas, G., Mezaris, V., Kompatsiaris, I., & Vlahavas, I. (2009). An empirical study of multi-label learning methods for video annotation. In Proceedings of the 7th international workshop on content-based multimedia indexing. New York: IEEE.
  8. Elisseeff, A., & Weston, J. (2001). A kernel method for multi-labelled classification. In Advances in neural information processing systems (Vol. 14, pp. 681–687). Cambridge: MIT Press.
  9. Freund, Y., & Schapire, R. E. (1999). A short introduction to boosting. Jinkō Chinō Gakkaishi, 14(5), 771–780.
  10. Fürnkranz, J. (2002). Round robin classification. Machine Learning, 2, 721–747.
  11. Fürnkranz, J., Hüllermeier, E., Loza Mencía, E., & Brinker, K. (2008). Multilabel classification via calibrated label ranking. Machine Learning, 73(2), 133–153. doi: 10.1007/s10994-008-5064-8 . · DOI · Paper page
  12. Godbole, S., & Sarawagi, S. (2004). Discriminative methods for multi-labeled classification. In PAKDD ’04: eighth Pacific-Asia conference on knowledge discovery and data mining (pp. 22–30). Berlin: Springer.
  13. Hsu, D., Kakade, S. M., Langford, J., & Zhang, T. (2009). Multi-label prediction via compressed sensing. In NIPS ’09: neural information processing systems 2009.
  14. Ji, S., Tang, L., Yu, S., & Ye, J. (2008). Extracting shared subspace for multi-label classification. In KDD ’08: 14th ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining (pp. 381–389). New York: ACM. doi: 10.1145/1401890.1401939 . · DOI
  15. Kiritchenko, S. (2005). Hierarchical text categorization and its application to bioinformatics. Ph.D. thesis, Queen’s University, Kingston, Canada.
  16. Loza Mencía, E., & Fürnkranz, J. (2008). Efficient pairwise multilabel classification for large-scale problems in the legal domain. In ECML-PKDD ’08: European conference on machine learning and knowledge discovery in databases (pp. 50–65). Berlin: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-87481-2_4 . · DOI
  17. McCallum, A. K. (1999). Multi-label text classification with a mixture model trained by EM. In Association for the advancement of artificial intelligence workshop on text learning.
  18. Petrovskiy, M. (2006). Paired comparisons method for solving multi-label learning problem. In HIS ’06: sixth international conference on hybrid intelligent systems. New York: IEEE. doi: 10.1109/HIS.2006.264925 . · doi:10.1109/his.2006.264925
  19. Platt, J. C. (1999). Probabilistic outputs for support vector machines and comparisons to regularized likelihood methods. In Advances in large margin classifiers (pp. 61–74). Cambridge: MIT Press.
  20. Ráez, A. M., López, L. A. U., & Steinberger, R. (2004). Adaptive selection of base classifiers in one-against-all learning for large multi-labeled collections. In EsTAL: 4th international conference on advances in natural language processing (pp. 1–12). · doi:10.1007/978-3-540-30228-5_1
  21. Read, J., Pfahringer, B., & Holmes, G. (2008). Multi-label classification using ensembles of pruned sets. In ICDM’08: eighth IEEE international conference on data mining (pp. 995–1000). New York: IEEE. · doi:10.1109/icdm.2008.74
  22. Read, J., Pfahringer, B., & Holmes, G. (2009a). Generating synthetic multi-label data streams. In MLD ’09: 1st ECML/PKDD 2009 workshop on learning from multi-label data.
  23. Read, J., Pfahringer, B., Holmes, G., & Frank, E. (2009b). Classifier chains for multi-label classification. In ECML ’09: 20th European conference on machine learning (pp. 254–269). Berlin: Springer.
  24. Schapire, R. E., & Singer, Y. (1999). Improved boosting algorithms using confidence-rated predictions. Machine Learning, 37(3), 297–336. · DOI · Paper page
  25. Schapire, R. E., & Singer, Y. (2000). Boostexter: a boosting-based system for text categorization. Machine Learning, 39(2/3), 135–168. · DOI · Paper page
  26. Spyromitros, E., Tsoumakas, G., & Vlahavas, I. (2008). An empirical study of lazy multilabel classification algorithms. In SETN ’08: fifth Hellenic conference on artificial intelligence (pp. 401–406). Berlin: Springer.
  27. Sun, L., Ji, S., & Ye, J. (2008). Hypergraph spectral learning for multi-label classification. In KDD ’08: 14th ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining (pp. 668–676). New York: ACM. doi: 10.1145/1401890.1401971 . · DOI · Paper page
  28. Tai, F., & Lin, H. T. (2010). Multi-label classification with principle label space transformation. In Workshop proceedings of learning from multi-label data, Haifa, Israel.
  29. Tsoumakas, G., & Katakis, I. (2007). Multi label classification: an overview. International Journal of Data Warehousing and Mining, 3(3), 1–13. · DOI · Paper page
  30. Tsoumakas, G., & Vlahavas, I. P. (2007). Random k-labelsets: an ensemble method for multilabel classification. In ECML ’07: 18th European conference on machine learning (pp. 406–417). Berlin: Springer. · DOI · Paper page
  31. Vens, C., Struyf, J., Schietgat, L., Džeroski, S., & Blockeel, H. (2008). Decision trees for hierarchical multi-label classification. Machine Learning, 2(73), 185–214. doi: 10.1007/s10994-008-5077-3 . · DOI · Paper page
  32. Yan, R., Tesic, J., & Smith, J. R. (2007). Model-shared subspace boosting for multi-label classification. In KDD ’07: 13th ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining (pp. 834–843). New York: ACM. doi: 10.1145/1281192.1281281 . · DOI
  33. Yang, Y. (2001). A study on thresholding strategies for text categorization. In Proceedings of SIGIR-01, 24th ACM international conference on research and development in information retrieval (pp. 137–145). New York: ACM Press.
  34. Zhang, M. L., & Zhou, Z. H. (2005). A k-nearest neighbor based algorithm for multi-label classification. In GnC ’05: IEEE international conference on granular computing (pp. 718–721). New York: IEEE. · DOI · Paper page
  35. Zhang, M. L., & Zhou, Z. H. (2007). ML-KNN: a lazy learning approach to multi-label learning. Pattern Recognition, 40(7), 2038–2048. · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

See all 2,289

Metadata

Authors
Read, J., Pfahringer, B., Holmes, G., & Frank, E.
Venue
Machine Learning
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2011-06-30
Volume
85
Issue
3
Pages
333-359
ISSN
  • 0885-6125 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-0565
DOI
10.1007/s10994-011-5256-5
OpenAlex
W1999954155
Cited by
2,289
References
3
FWCI
71.55
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid
Licence
www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.