The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Collective multi-label classification
Abstract
Common approaches to multi-label classification learn independent classifiers for each category, and employ ranking or thresholding schemes for classification. Because they do not exploit dependencies between labels, such techniques are only well-suited to problems in which categories are independent. However, in many domains labels are highly interdependent. This paper explores multi-label conditional random field (CRF)classification models that directly parameterize label co-occurrences in multi-label classification. Experiments show that the models outperform their single-label counterparts on standard text corpora. Even when multi-labels are sparse, the models improve subset classification error by as much as 40%.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Cited by
It's who you know: graph mining using recursive structural features
Henderson, K., Gallagher, B., Li, L., Akoglu, L., Eliassi-Rad, T., Tong, H., & Faloutsos, C. (2011) · Proceedings of the 17th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining · doi:10.1145/2020408.2020512 · Cited by 223
Metadata
- Authors
- Ghamrawi, N., & McCallum, A.
- Venue
- Proceedings of the 14th ACM international conference on Information and knowledge management
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2005-10-31
- Pages
- 195-200
- OpenAlex
- W1998839399
- Cited by
- 410
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 5.96
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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.
