Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Comprehensive Comparative Study of Multi-Label Classification Methods

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2102.07113 v2 pith:SVQPIWOU submitted 2021-02-14 cs.LG cs.AIcs.CC

classification cs.LGcs.AIcs.CC
keywords methodsdatasetsevaluationdifferentmeasuresacrossclassificationcommunity
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Multi-label classification (MLC) has recently received increasing interest from the machine learning community. Several studies provide reviews of methods and datasets for MLC and a few provide empirical comparisons of MLC methods. However, they are limited in the number of methods and datasets considered. This work provides a comprehensive empirical study of a wide range of MLC methods on a plethora of datasets from various domains. More specifically, our study evaluates 26 methods on 42 benchmark datasets using 20 evaluation measures. The adopted evaluation methodology adheres to the highest literature standards for designing and executing large scale, time-budgeted experimental studies. First, the methods are selected based on their usage by the community, assuring representation of methods across the MLC taxonomy of methods and different base learners. Second, the datasets cover a wide range of complexity and domains of application. The selected evaluation measures assess the predictive performance and the efficiency of the methods. The results of the analysis identify RFPCT, RFDTBR, ECCJ48, EBRJ48 and AdaBoostMH as best performing methods across the spectrum of performance measures. Whenever a new method is introduced, it should be compared to different subsets of MLC methods, determined on the basis of the different evaluation criteria.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Automated Multi-Label Annotation for Mental Health Illnesses Using Large Language Models

    cs.AI 2024-12 reject novelty 4.0 of 10

    The paper converts single-label mental health datasets into multi-label ones by having LLMs annotate additional disorders, producing SPAADE-DR, but the main evaluation validates models against labels the models themse...

Pith tools