Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 151 references

A Systematic Literature Review on Multi-label Data Stream Classification

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A systematic review of 58 multi-label stream classification papers builds a method hierarchy and shows that label latency and concept evolution are the field's least-addressed problems.

desk verdict A useful but uneven SLR of multi-label data stream classification: the taxonomy and gap analysis are valuable, yet the paper's own inconsistent study counts and self-admitted limits on the complexity table undercut its most quantified claims. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.17455 v1 pith:35VMZANN submitted 2025-08-24 cs.LG

H. Freire-Oliveira , E. R. F. Paiva , J. Gama , L. Khan , R. Cerri This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LG
keywords multi-labelclassificationdatastreamsconceptdriftevolutionlabellatencysystematicliteraturereviewasymptoticcomplexityensemblelearning
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper is a systematic literature review of multi-label classifiers for data streams. It surveys 58 papers published between 2016 and 2024, builds a full hierarchy of the methods by approach (algorithm adaptation, problem transformation, ensemble), lists their asymptotic complexities, and analyzes how they address concept drift, concept evolution, and label latency. The paper's central finding is that the field has concentrated on concept drift, while only six of 58 papers consider label latency and only eight consider concept evolution, with no paper handling recurring labels. A sympathetic reader would care because these are the problems that most affect real-world streams, where ground-truth labels arrive late and new classes appear without warning.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the method hierarchy (Figure 9), which organizes all 58 surveyed methods into algorithm adaptation, problem transformation, and ensemble families and their subtypes (kNN, ELM, tree, SOM, powerset, binary relevance, regression-based, and others). The hierarchy does the work of making the literature comparable despite heterogeneous terminology, and the six research questions act as the extraction instrument that turns each paper into a row of comparable fields. The quality-assessment score and the asymptotic-complexity table are secondary instruments that let the review quantify which problems are addressed and at what cost.

What would settle it

Re-run the five-database query with additional sources, a relaxed quality cutoff, and the same 2016-2024 window, then count qualifying papers that explicitly handle finite delayed label latency or recurring classes; if the count rises substantially above six and eight (and above zero for recurring labels), the review's central gap findings would be overturned.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The authors claim to fill the gaps left by previous surveys by conducting a systematic review guided by six research questions covering how the classifier works, label latency, concept drift detection, concept evolution detection, evaluation strategy, and limitations. Their quantitative map of the literature shows that concept drift dominates attention (32 of 58 papers), while label latency is considered by only six papers, all addressing the infinite-latency case with none addressing feasible finite delay, and concept evolution by only eight, none of which handle recurring classes. The resulting hierarchy sorts the methods into algorithm adaptation, problem transformation, and ensemble approaches, and the complexity table records the asymptotic time and space behavior for 27 methods. The paper also reports that evaluation is far from standardized: only eleven papers are explicit about using prequential evaluation, and most papers are evaluated as a batch run at the end, making metric consensus an open problem.

Load-bearing premise

The review's counts of who handles label latency or concept evolution are only as strong as its search-and-selection protocol, so a corpus that missed relevant papers would make those gaps look bigger than they are.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Label latency is an open area: only six of 58 methods handle infinite label latency, and none handle finite delayed latency, so methods that work with delayed ground truth are a direct research opportunity.
  • Concept evolution is similarly under-addressed: only eight methods detect new labels and none handle recurring labels, so models that remember and re-introduce past classes are missing.
  • Concept drift dominates the field (32 of 58 methods), yet recurring drift is among the least handled drift patterns, so even within the most studied problem there is an open sub-problem.
  • Evaluation practice is not standardized: only eleven papers explicitly use prequential evaluation and F1 dominates while other metrics vary widely, which makes cross-method comparison unreliable.
  • The complexity table gives asymptotic bounds for 27 methods but the authors themselves note these lack rigorous mathematical evaluation, so the complexity map is a starting point rather than a verified benchmark.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the corpus is representative, the next high-leverage contribution is a method that treats delayed (finite) label latency, since the review found no paper at all addressing that case.
  • The absence of recurring-label handling suggests a concrete testable design: a system that archives and reactivates label-specific models when an old class reappears, which the review implies but does not propose.
  • Because the review found only four semi-supervised methods, combining missing-label robustness with drift and evolution detection is likely to be a productive seam that the authors only signal implicitly.
  • The complexity claims should be treated as provisional: the authors state the table 'lacks rigorous mathematical evaluation,' so a benchmarking study that measures actual time and memory under identical conditions would be a natural follow-up the review does not itself perform.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. This manuscript presents a systematic literature review (SLR) of multi-label data stream classification methods, following the Kitchenham and Charters framework. The authors describe a structured search across five databases, an inclusion/exclusion protocol, a quality assessment with a cutoff score of 3, and a final corpus of 58 studies. The core of the review is organized around six research questions: it proposes a hierarchy of methods (algorithm adaptation, problem transformation, ensemble), analyzes how methods handle label latency, concept drift, and concept evolution, discusses evaluation strategies and metrics, and identifies research gaps. The main claimed contributions are a full hierarchy of surveyed methods, an exhaustive listing of asymptotic complexities, and an identification of the least addressed problems, namely label latency and concept evolution, with no surveyed method handling recurring labels.

Significance. If the corpus and the extracted facts are accurate, this review would provide a valuable structured map of an active research area and quantitative evidence about under-studied problems such as label latency and concept evolution. The authors are transparent about their methodology, present a detailed data extraction form, and explicitly list limitations in Section 12, including the lack of rigorous verification of the complexity table. These are strengths for a survey paper. The main risk is that the quantified gap analysis rests on the consistency and correctness of the study counts and the binary coding of each paper's capabilities, and the manuscript currently contains internal inconsistencies that undermine this foundation. The contribution is therefore significant but needs correction before it can be fully relied upon.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sections 3.5, 6, 7, 8 and Table 8] The study count is inconsistent across the paper. Table 8 lists 58 studies and Section 3.5 states that 58 studies were selected, but Section 6 states 'of all the 58 investigated studies', Section 7 states '32 out of the 59 studies', and Section 8 states 'of all the 52 investigated studies, only eight'. These different denominators directly affect the headline quantitative claims that only 6 of 58 papers handle label latency and only 8 of 52 handle concept evolution. The authors must correct these counts, ensure all sections use the same final corpus size, and if any studies were excluded after data extraction, describe when and why this occurred.
  2. [Table 8, entries 15 and 21, with references [90] and [93]] Entry 15 of Table 8 lists 'An Online Variational Inference and Ensemble Based Multi-label Classifier for Data Streams' as citation [90], but reference [90] is 'Multi-label classification via incremental clustering on an evolving data stream', while the cited title matches reference [93]. Entry 21 also cites [90] for 'Multi-label classification via incremental clustering on an evolving data stream'. This suggests a citation mapping error, and it raises the possibility that other entries in Table 8 have similar mismatches. The authors should verify every entry in Table 8 against its reference and correct any mis-associations, since accurate study identification is essential for a systematic review.
  3. [Section 4.5, Table 10, and Section 12] The abstract and the introduction's contribution list describe 'an exhaustive listing of the asymptotic complexities', but Section 12 explicitly acknowledges a 'lack of a rigorous mathematical evaluation of the asymptotic complexities in Table 10'. This is an overstatement of the support for that contribution. The authors should either temper the wording in the abstract and introduction to match the actual verification level or provide a rigorous verification and benchmarking of the entries in Table 10. In addition, Table 10 contains undefined symbols (e.g., 'p = ?' for PSLT) and unexpanded notation, which should be clarified.
  4. [Section 3.4 and Figure 3] The quality assessment procedure combines a citation-age score (Equation 1) with a four-item checklist, but the paper does not report the number of studies excluded at each stage of Figure 3 or the distribution of quality scores. Reporting these numbers would strengthen the reproducibility of the SLR and allow readers to assess whether the cutoff of 3 is appropriate. Without this information, the claim that the selected set is representative is harder to evaluate.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 4.2, Figure 6] The text states the number of publications per year 'rising in 2028', which is a typo and should read '2018'.
  2. [Section 4.1 heading] The heading 'Co-occurence' is misspelled; it should be 'Co-occurrence'.
  3. [Table 9] In the 'Is the code available' field, the listed possible values are 'Yes' and 'Not mentioned', with no 'No' option; this may not accurately capture papers that explicitly state code is not available.
  4. [General presentation] Several placeholders in the references and the ACM format header (e.g., 'https://doi.org/10.1145/nnnnnnn.nnnnnnn') remain unfilled; these should be completed or removed before publication.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the SLR's conclusions summarize surveyed papers and are not derived from fitted inputs or self-citation.

full rationale

This paper is a systematic literature review; it contains no derivation chain in which a claimed prediction is constructed from, or equivalent to, its own inputs. The central contributions—the method hierarchy, complexity listing, and gap counts—are read off from the 58 selected primary studies rather than obtained by fitting parameters or by invoking a self-referential theorem. The authors' occasional self-citations (e.g., their own MINAS and SOM stream-classification papers) are used as objects of the survey, not as load-bearing external justification for the review's conclusions. Statements such as 'Of all the 58 investigated studies, only six considered the possibility of label latency' (Section 6) and '32 out of the 59 studies' (Section 7) report counts over the surveyed corpus; the differing denominators (58 vs. 59 vs. 52) and the Section 12 admission that Table 10 'lacks rigorous mathematical evaluation' are correctness and reporting-quality concerns, not circularity. The review's conclusions do not reduce to its inputs by construction, so the appropriate circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 2 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The review rests on methodological assumptions about corpus completeness and the accuracy of surveyed papers' self-reports. It introduces no free parameters or invented entities.

assumptions (2)
  • domain assumption The search protocol and quality assessment cutoff yield a comprehensive, representative collection of the multi-label data stream classification literature.
    Section 3 and Figure 3 describe the protocol. If relevant works were excluded or the query missed a significant portion of the field, the review's quantified gap analysis (e.g., only 6 of 58 papers handle label latency) would be misleading.
  • domain assumption The surveyed papers' self-reported method descriptions and asymptotic complexity figures are accurate and comparable.
    Sections 4.5 and 12: the review compiles Tables 10 and 11 from the papers' claims, and the authors explicitly note the lack of rigorous verification and benchmarking.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Systematic Literature Review on Multi-label Data Stream Classification." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/35VMZANN

@misc{pith2026250817455,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Systematic Literature Review on Multi-label Data Stream Classification},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/35VMZANN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.17455}
}
read the original abstract

Classification in the context of multi-label data streams represents a challenge that has attracted significant attention due to its high real-world applicability. However, this task faces problems inherent to dynamic environments, such as the continuous arrival of data at high speed and volume, changes in the data distribution (concept drift), the emergence of new labels (concept evolution), and the latency in the arrival of ground truth labels. This systematic literature review presents an in-depth analysis of multi-label data stream classification proposals. We characterize the latest methods in the literature, providing a comprehensive overview, building a thorough hierarchy, and discussing how the proposals approach each problem. Furthermore, we discuss the adopted evaluation strategies and analyze the methods' asymptotic complexity and resource consumption. Finally, we identify the main gaps and offer recommendations for future research directions in the field.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

151 extracted references · 59 canonical work pages

  1. [90]

    Tien Thanh Nguyen, Manh Truong Dang, Anh Vu Luong, Alan Wee-Chung Liew, Tiancai Liang, and John McCall

  2. [93]

    Thi Thu Thuy Nguyen, Tien Thanh Nguyen, Alan Wee-Chung Liew, Shi-Lin Wang, Tiancai Liang, and Yongjiang Hu

  3. [1]

    Supriya Agrahari and Anil Kumar Singh. 2022. Concept Drift Detection in Data Stream Mining: A literature review. Journal of King Saud University - Computer and Information Sciences 34, 10 (Nov. 2022), 9523–9540. https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.jksuci.2021.11.006

    doi:10.1016/j.jksuci.2021.11.006 2022

  4. [2]

    Zahra Ahmadi and Stefan Kramer. 2018. A label compression method for online multi-label classification. Pattern Recognition Letters 111 (Aug. 2018), 64–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patrec.2018.04.015

    work page doi:10.1016/j.patrec.2018.04.015 2018

  5. [3]

    Zahra Ahmadi and Stefan Kramer. 2019. Modeling Multi-label Recurrence in Data Streams. In 2019 IEEE International Conference on Big Knowledge (ICBK) . IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/icbk.2019.00010

    arXiv 2019

  6. [4]

    Masud, Latifur Khan, Charu Aggarwal, Jiawei Han, and Bhavani Thuraisingham

    Tahseen Al-Khateeb, Mohammad M. Masud, Latifur Khan, Charu Aggarwal, Jiawei Han, and Bhavani Thuraisingham

  7. [6]

    Everton Alvares-Cherman, Jean Metz, and Maria Carolina Monard. 2012. Incorporating label dependency into the binary relevance framework for multi-label classification.Expert Systems with Applications 39, 2 (Feb. 2012), 1647–1655. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2011.06.056

    work page doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2011.06.056 2012

  8. [7]

    Sepehr Bakhshi and Fazli Can. 2024. Balancing efficiency vs. effectiveness and providing missing label robustness in multi-label stream classification. Knowledge-Based Systems 289 (4 2024). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2024.111489

    arXiv 2024

Show all 151 references
  1. [8]

    Sepehr Bakhshi, Pouya Ghahramanian, Hamed Bonab, and Fazli Can. 2023. A Broad Ensemble Learning System for Drifting Stream Classification. IEEE Access 11 (2023), 89315–89330. https://doi.org/10.1109/access.2023.3306957

    2023

  2. [9]

    Márcio Basgalupp, Ricardo Cerri, Leander Schietgat, Isaac Triguero, and Celine Vens. 2021. Beyond global and local multi-target learning. Information Sciences 579 (Nov. 2021), 508–524. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2021.08.022

    2021 doi

  3. [10]

    Albert Bifet and Ricard Gavaldà. 2007. Learning from Time-Changing Data with Adaptive Windowing. In Proceedings of the 2007 SIAM International Conference on Data Mining . Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics. https: //doi.org/10.1137/1.9781611972771.42

    2007 doi

  4. [11]

    Albert Bifet, Ricard Gavaldà, Geoffrey Holmes, and Bernhard Pfahringer. 2018. Streams and Sketches. In Machine Learning for Data Streams: with Practical Examples in MOA . The MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/10654. 003.0009 arXiv:https://direct.mit.edu/book/chapter-...

    2018

  5. [12]

    Albert Bifet, Geoff Holmes, Richard Kirkby, and Bernhard Pfahringer. 2010. MOA: Massive Online Analysis. J. Mach. Learn. Res. 11 (2010), 1601–1604. https://doi.org/10.5555/1756006.1859903

    2010

  6. [13]

    Hendrik Blockeel, Luc De Raedt, and Jan Ramon. 2000. Top-down induction of clustering trees. arXiv:cs/0011032 [cs.LG]

    2000 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Leo Breiman. 2001. Machine Learning 45, 1 (2001), 5–32. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1010933404324

    2001 doi

  8. [15]

    Dariusz Brzezinski and Jerzy Stefanowski. 2017. Prequential AUC: properties of the area under the ROC curve for data streams with concept drift. Knowledge and Information Systems 52 (8 2017), 531–562. Issue 2. https: //doi.org/10.1007/s10115-017-1022-8

    2017 doi

  9. [16]

    Sophie Burkhardt and Stefan Kramer. 2018. Online multi-label dependency topic models for text classification. Machine Learning 107 (5 2018), 859–886. Issue 5. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10994-017-5689-6

    2018 doi

  10. [17]

    Alican Büyükçakir, Hamed Bonab, and Fazli Can. 2018. A Novel Online Stacked Ensemble for Multi-Label Stream Classification. In Proceedings of the 27th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management (CIKM 18). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3269206.3271774

    2018

  11. [18]

    Valero-Mas, and Juan R

    Jorge Calvo-Zaragoza, Jose J. Valero-Mas, and Juan R. Rico-Juan. 2015. Improving kNN multi-label classification in Prototype Selection scenarios using class proposals. Pattern Recognition 48, 5 (May 2015), 1608–1622. https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.patcog.2014.11.015

    2015 doi

  12. [19]

    Alberto Cano and Bartosz Krawczyk. 2019. Kappa Updated Ensemble for drifting data stream mining. Machine Learning 109, 1 (Oct. 2019), 175–218. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10994-019-05840-z

    2019 doi

  13. [20]

    Alberto Cano and Bartosz Krawczyk. 2022. ROSE: robust online self-adjusting ensemble for continual learning on imbalanced drifting data streams. Machine Learning 111, 7 (April 2022), 2561–2599. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10994- 022-06168-x

    2022 doi

  14. [21]

    Faria, and João Gama

    Ricardo Cerri, Elaine R. Faria, and João Gama. 2022. An Algorithm Adaptation Method for Multi-Label Stream Classification using Self-Organizing Maps. In 2022 21st IEEE International Conference on Machine Learning and Applications (ICMLA). IEEE, 1071–1076. https://doi.org/10.11...

    2022

  15. [22]

    Junior, Elaine

    Ricardo Cerri, Joel David C. Junior, Elaine. R. Faria, and João Gama. 2021. A new self-organizing map based algorithm for multi-label stream classification. In Proceedings of the 36th Annual ACM Symposium on Applied Computing (SAC ’21). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3412841.3441922

    2021

  16. [23]

    SH Cha. 2007. Comprehensive survey on distance/similarity measures between probability density functions. International Journal of Mathematical Models and Methods in Applied Sciences 1, 4 (2007), 300–307. http://www.unbox. org/stuffed/export/117/doc/distance07.pdf

    2007

  17. [24]

    Everton Alvares Cherman, Maria Carolina Monard, and Jean Metz. 2011. Multi-label Problem Transformation Methods: a Case Study. CLEI Electronic Journal 14, 1 (April 2011). https://doi.org/10.19153/cleiej.14.1.4

    2011 doi

  18. [25]

    Hong-Min Chu, Kuan-Hao Huang, and Hsuan-Tien Lin. 2019. Dynamic principal projection for cost-sensitive online multi-label classification. Machine Learning 108, 8–9 (Jan. 2019), 1193–1230. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10994-018-5773-6

    2019 doi

  19. [26]

    Zhe Chu, Peipei Li, and Xuegang Hu. 2019. Co-training Based on Semi-Supervised Ensemble Classification Approach for Multi-label Data Stream. In 2019 IEEE International Conference on Big Knowledge (ICBK) . IEEE. https://doi.org/10. 1109/icbk.2019.00016

    2019

  20. [27]

    Amanda Clare and Ross D. King. 2001.Knowledge Discovery in Multi-label Phenotype Data. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 42–53. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-44794-6_4 J. ACM, Vol. 1, No. 1, Article . Publication date: August 2025. A Systematic Literature Review on Multi-label Data ...

    2001 doi

  21. [28]

    Costa, Elaine R

    Joel D. Costa, Elaine R. Faria, Jonathan A. Silva, João Gama, and Ricardo Cerri. 2023. Novelty detection for multi- label stream classification under extreme verification latency. Applied Soft Computing 141 (July 2023), 110265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2023.110265

    2023

  22. [29]

    Costa Junior, Elaine R

    Joel D. Costa Junior, Elaine R. Faria, Jonathan A. Silva, Joao Gama, and Ricardo Cerri. 2019. Novelty Detection for Multi-Label Stream Classification. In 2019 8th Brazilian Conference on Intelligent Systems (BRACIS) . IEEE. https: //doi.org/10.1109/bracis.2019.00034

    2019

  23. [30]

    Costa Junior, Elaine R

    Joel D. Costa Junior, Elaine R. Faria, Jonathan A. Silva, Joao Gama, and Ricardo Cerri. 2019. Pruned Sets for Multi-Label Stream Classification without True Labels. In 2019 International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN) . IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ijcnn.2019.8851788

    2019

  24. [31]

    Cover and P

    T. Cover and P. Hart. 1967. Nearest neighbor pattern classification. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 13, 1 (1967), 21–27. https://doi.org/10.1109/TIT.1967.1053964

    1967

  25. [32]

    Mihika Dave, Sahil Tapiawala, Meng Joo Er, and Rajasekar Venkatesan. 2016. A novel progressive multi-label classifier for class-incremental data. In 2016 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (SMC) . IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/smc.2016.7844790

    2016

  26. [33]

    Joel David Costa Júnior, Elaine Faria, Jonathan Silva, and Ricardo Cerri. 2017. Label Powerset for Multi-label Data Streams Classification with Concept Drift

    2017

  27. [34]

    Salah Ud Din, Junming Shao, Jay Kumar, Cobbinah Bernard Mawuli, S. M. Hasan Mahmud, Wei Zhang, and Qinli Yang. 2021. Data stream classification with novel class detection: a review, comparison and challenges. Knowledge and Information Systems 63, 9 (July 2021), 2231–2276. http...

    2021 doi

  28. [35]

    Pedro Domingos and Geoff Hulten. 2000. Mining high-speed data streams. In Proceedings of the sixth ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining (KDD00). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/347090.347107

    2000

  29. [36]

    Jie Du and Chi-Man Vong. 2020. Robust Online Multilabel Learning Under Dynamic Changes in Data Distribution With Labels. IEEE Transactions on Cybernetics 50, 1 (Jan. 2020), 374–385. https://doi.org/10.1109/tcyb.2018.2869476

    2020

  30. [37]

    Andre Elisseeff and Jason Weston. 2002. A Kernel Method for Multi-Labelled Classification . The MIT Press, 681–688. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/1120.003.0092

    2002 doi

  31. [38]

    Meng Joo Er, Rajasekar Venkatesan, and Ning Wang. 2016. An online universal classifier for binary, multi-class and multi-label classification. In 2016 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (SMC) . IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/smc.2016.7844809

    2016

  32. [39]

    Aurora Esteban, Alberto Cano, Amelia Zafra, and Sebastián Ventura. 2024. Hoeffding adaptive trees for multi-label classification on data streams. Knowledge-Based Systems 304 (11 2024), 112561. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2024. 112561

    2024 doi

  33. [40]

    Faria, Isabel J

    Elaine R. Faria, Isabel J. C. R. Gonçalves, André C. P. L. F. de Carvalho, and João Gama. 2015. Novelty detection in data streams. Artificial Intelligence Review 45, 2 (Oct. 2015), 235–269. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10462-015-9444-8

    2015 doi

  34. [41]

    Farid, Li Zhang, Alamgir Hossain, Chowdhury Mofizur Rahman, Rebecca Strachan, Graham Sexton, and Keshav Dahal

    Dewan Md. Farid, Li Zhang, Alamgir Hossain, Chowdhury Mofizur Rahman, Rebecca Strachan, Graham Sexton, and Keshav Dahal. 2013. An adaptive ensemble classifier for mining concept drifting data streams. Expert Systems with Applications 40, 15 (Nov. 2013), 5895–5906. https://doi....

    2013 doi

  35. [42]

    Fix and J.L

    E. Fix and J.L. Hodges. 1951. Discriminatory Analysis: Nonparametric Discrimination: Consistency Properties . Technical Report 4

    1951

  36. [43]

    Johannes Fürnkranz, Eyke Hüllermeier, Eneldo Loza Mencía, and Klaus Brinker. 2008. Multilabel classification via calibrated label ranking. Machine Learning 73, 2 (Aug. 2008), 133–153. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10994-008-5064-8

    2008 doi

  37. [44]

    Joao Gama. 2010. Introduction to Data Streams. In Knowledge Discovery from Data Streams . Chapman & Hall/CRC

    2010

  38. [45]

    João Gama, Raquel Sebastião, and Pedro Pereira Rodrigues. 2012. On evaluating stream learning algorithms. Machine Learning 90, 3 (Oct. 2012), 317–346. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10994-012-5320-9

    2012 doi

  39. [46]

    João Gama, Indr˙e Žliobait˙e, Albert Bifet, Mykola Pechenizkiy, and Abdelhamid Bouchachia. 2014. A survey on concept drift adaptation. Comput. Surveys 46, 4 (March 2014), 1–37. https://doi.org/10.1145/2523813

    2014 doi

  40. [47]

    Dhatri Ganda and Rachana Buch. 2018. A survey on multi label classification.Recent Trends in Programming Languages 5, 1 (2018), 19–23

    2018

  41. [48]

    Jean-Gabriel Gaudreault and Paula Branco. 2024. A Systematic Literature Review of Novelty Detection in Data Streams: Challenges and Opportunities. Comput. Surveys 56, 10 (May 2024), 1–37. https://doi.org/10.1145/3657286

    2024 doi

  42. [49]

    Heitor Murilo Gomes, Jean Paul Barddal, Fabrício Enembreck, and Albert Bifet. 2017. A Survey on Ensemble Learning for Data Stream Classification. Comput. Surveys 50, 2 (March 2017), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.1145/3054925

    2017 doi

  43. [50]

    Gomes, Albert Bifet, Jesse Read, Jean Paul Barddal, Fabrício Enembreck, Bernhard Pfharinger, Geoff Holmes, and Talel Abdessalem

    Heitor M. Gomes, Albert Bifet, Jesse Read, Jean Paul Barddal, Fabrício Enembreck, Bernhard Pfharinger, Geoff Holmes, and Talel Abdessalem. 2017. Adaptive random forests for evolving data stream classification. Machine Learning 106, 9–10 (June 2017), 1469–1495. https://doi.org/...

    2017 doi

  44. [51]

    Heitor Murilo Gomes, Maciej Grzenda, Rodrigo Mello, Jesse Read, Minh Huong Le Nguyen, and Albert Bifet. 2022. A Survey on Semi-supervised Learning for Delayed Partially Labelled Data Streams. Comput. Surveys 55, 4 (Nov. 2022), 1–42. https://doi.org/10.1145/3523055 J. ACM, Vol....

    2022 doi

  45. [52]

    Xiuwen Gong, Dong Yuan, and Wei Bao. 2020. Online Metric Learning for Multi-Label Classification. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence 34 (4 2020), 4012–4019. Issue 04. https://doi.org/10.1609/aaai.v34i04.5818

    2020 doi

  46. [53]

    Margherita Grandini, Enrico Bagli, and Giorgio Visani. 2020. Metrics for Multi-Class Classification: an Overview. arXiv:2008.05756 [stat.ML]

    2020 arXiv

  47. [54]

    Sonia Guehria, Habiba Belleili, and Nabiha Azizi. 2023. A Survey on Ensemble Multi-label Classifiers . Springer Nature Switzerland, 100–109. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-27524-1_11

    2023 doi

  48. [55]

    Ege Berkay Gulcan and Fazli Can. 2023. Unsupervised concept drift detection for multi-label data streams. Artificial Intelligence Review 56 (3 2023), 2401–2434. Issue 3. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10462-022-10232-2

    2023 doi

  49. [56]

    Ege Berkay Gulcan, Isin Su Ecevit, and Fazli Can. 2022. Binary Transformation Method for Multi-Label Stream Classification. In Proceedings of the 31st ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management (CIKM ’22). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3511808.3557553

    2022

  50. [57]

    Meng Han, Hongxin Wu, Zhiqiang Chen, Muhang Li, and Xilong Zhang. 2022. A survey of multi-label classification based on supervised and semi-supervised learning. International Journal of Machine Learning and Cybernetics 14, 3 (Oct. 2022), 697–724. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13042...

    2022 doi

  51. [58]

    Rivera, and María J

    Francisco Herrera, Francisco Charte, Antonio J. Rivera, and María J. del Jesus. 2016. Adaptation-Based Classifiers. Springer International Publishing, 81–99. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-41111-8_5

    2016 doi

  52. [59]

    Rivera, and María J

    Francisco Herrera, Francisco Charte, Antonio J. Rivera, and María J. del Jesus. 2016.Case Studies and Metrics. Springer International Publishing, Cham, 33–63. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-41111-8_3

    2016 doi

  53. [60]

    Rivera, and María J

    Francisco Herrera, Francisco Charte, Antonio J. Rivera, and María J. del Jesus. 2016. Multilabel Classification. Springer International Publishing, 17–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-41111-8_2

    2016 doi

  54. [61]

    Rivera, and María J

    Francisco Herrera, Francisco Charte, Antonio J. Rivera, and María J. del Jesus. 2016. Transformation-Based Classifiers. Springer International Publishing, Cham, 65–79. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-41111-8_4

    2016 doi

  55. [62]

    Moritz Heusinger, Christoph Raab, and Frank-Michael Schleif. 2020. Passive concept drift handling via variations of learning vector quantization. Neural Computing and Applications 34, 1 (Aug. 2020), 89–100. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s00521-020-05242-6

    2020

  56. [63]

    Gao Huang, Shiji Song, Jatinder N. D. Gupta, and Cheng Wu. 2014. Semi-Supervised and Unsupervised Extreme Learning Machines. IEEE Transactions on Cybernetics 44, 12 (Dec. 2014), 2405–2417. https://doi.org/10.1109/tcyb. 2014.2307349

    2014

  57. [64]

    Guang-Bin Huang, Qin-Yu Zhu, and Chee-Kheong Siew. 2004. Extreme learning machine: a new learning scheme of feedforward neural networks. In2004 IEEE International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IEEE Cat. No.04CH37541), Vol. 2. 985–990 vol.2. https://doi.org/10.1109/IJCNN...

    2004 arXiv

  58. [65]

    Jintao Huang, Chi-Man Vong, Wenbin Qian, Qin Huang, and Yimin Zhou. 2023. Online Label Distribution Learning Using Random Vector Functional-Link Network. IEEE Transactions on Emerging Topics in Computational Intelligence 7, 4 (Aug. 2023), 1177–1190. https://doi.org/10.1109/tet...

    2023

  59. [66]

    Eyke Hüllermeier, Johannes Fürnkranz, Weiwei Cheng, and Klaus Brinker. 2008. Label ranking by learning pairwise preferences. Artificial Intelligence 172, 16–17 (Nov. 2008), 1897–1916. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artint.2008.08.002

    2008 doi

  60. [67]

    Adriana Sayuri Iwashita and Joao Paulo Papa. 2019. An Overview on Concept Drift Learning. IEEE Access 7 (2019), 1532–1547. https://doi.org/10.1109/access.2018.2886026

    2019

  61. [68]

    Komagal Yallini Shanmuga Sundaram Kanagaraj and Mahendiran Nallappan. 2023. Methods for Predicting the Rise of the New Labels from a High-Dimensional Data Stream. International Journal of Intelligent Engineering and Systems 16, 1 (2023), 339 – 349. https://doi.org/10.22266/iji...

    2023

  62. [69]

    Chris Dongjoo Kim, Jinseo Jeong, and Gunhee Kim. 2020. Imbalanced Continual Learning with Partitioning Reservoir Sampling. Springer International Publishing, 411–428. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-58601-0_25

    2020 doi

  63. [70]

    Barbara Kitchenham and Stuart Charters. 2007. Guidelines for performing Systematic Literature Reviews in Software Engineering. 2 (01 2007)

    2007

  64. [71]

    Dragi Kocev, Celine Vens, Jan Struyf, and Sašo Džeroski. 2007. Ensembles of Multi-Objective Decision Trees. In Machine Learning: ECML 2007 , Joost N. Kok, Jacek Koronacki, Raomon Lopez de Mantaras, Stan Matwin, Dunja Mladenič, and Andrzej Skowron (Eds.). Springer Berlin Heidel...

    2007

  65. [72]

    Dragi Kocev, Celine Vens, Jan Struyf, and Sašo Džeroski. 2013. Tree ensembles for predicting structured outputs. Pattern Recognition 46, 3 (March 2013), 817–833. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patcog.2012.09.023

    2013 doi

  66. [73]

    Yanika Kongsorot, Punyaphol Horata, and Pakarat Musikawan. 2020. An Incremental Kernel Extreme Learning Machine for Multi-Label Learning With Emerging New Labels. IEEE Access 8 (2020), 46055–46070. https://doi.org/10. 1109/access.2020.2978648

    2020

  67. [74]

    Minku, João Gama, Jerzy Stefanowski, and Michał Woźniak

    Bartosz Krawczyk, Leandro L. Minku, João Gama, Jerzy Stefanowski, and Michał Woźniak. 2017. Ensemble learning for data stream analysis: A survey.Information Fusion 37 (Sept. 2017), 132–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.inffus.2017.02.004

    2017 doi

  68. [75]

    Jay Kreps, Neha Narkhede, Jun Rao, et al . 2011. Kafka: A distributed messaging system for log processing. In Proceedings of the NetDB , Vol. 11. Athens, Greece, 1–7. J. ACM, Vol. 1, No. 1, Article . Publication date: August 2025. A Systematic Literature Review on Multi-label ...

    2011

  69. [76]

    Mawuli, and Qinli Yang

    Jay Kumar, Junming Shao, Rajesh Kumar, Salah Ud Din, Cobbinah B. Mawuli, and Qinli Yang. 2023. Online Semi- Supervised Classification on Multilabel Evolving High-Dimensional Text Streams. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics: Systems 53, 10 (Oct. 2023), 5983–5995...

    2023

  70. [77]

    Li Li, Ruizhi Sun, Saihua Cai, Kaiyi Zhao, and Qianqian Zhang. 2019. A review of improved extreme learning machine methods for data stream classification. Multimedia Tools and Applications 78, 23 (April 2019), 33375–33400. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-019-7543-2

    2019 doi

  71. [78]

    Peiyan Li, Honglian Wang, Christian Böhm, and Junming Shao. 2020. Online Semi-supervised Multi-label Classification with Label Compression and Local Smooth Regression. InProceedings of the Twenty-Ninth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (California). Int...

    2020 doi

  72. [79]

    Peipei Li, Haixiang Zhang, Xuegang Hu, and Xindong Wu. 2022. High-Dimensional Multi-Label Data Stream Classification With Concept Drifting Detection. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering (2022), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1109/tkde.2022.3200068

    2022

  73. [80]

    Shunpan Liang, Weiwei Pan, Dianlong You, Ze Liu, and Ling Yin. 2022. Incremental deep forest for multi-label data streams learning. Applied Intelligence 52, 12 (April 2022), 13398–13414. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10489-022-03414-6

    2022 doi

  74. [81]

    Eneldo Loza Mencía, Sang-Hyeun Park, and Johannes Fürnkranz. 2010. Efficient voting prediction for pairwise multilabel classification. Neurocomputing 73, 7–9 (March 2010), 1164–1176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neucom.2009.11. 024

    2010 doi

  75. [82]

    Edwin Lughofer. 2022. Evolving multi-label fuzzy classifier. Information Sciences 597 (June 2022), 1–23. https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2022.03.045

    2022 doi

  76. [83]

    Fangfang Luo, Genggeng Liu, Wenzhong Guo, Guolong Chen, and Naixue Xiong. 2022. ML-KELM: A Kernel Extreme Learning Machine Scheme for Multi-Label Classification of Real Time Data Stream in SIoT. IEEE Transactions on Network Science and Engineering 9, 3 (May 2022), 1044–1055. h...

    2022

  77. [84]

    Gjorgji Madjarov, Dragi Kocev, Dejan Gjorgjevikj, and Sašo Džeroski. 2012. An extensive experimental comparison of methods for multi-label learning. Pattern Recognition 45, 9 (Sept. 2012), 3084–3104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patcog. 2012.03.004

    2012 doi

  78. [85]

    Masud, Qing Chen, Latifur Khan, Charu Aggarwal, Jing Gao, Jiawei Han, and Bhavani Thuraisingham

    Mohammad M. Masud, Qing Chen, Latifur Khan, Charu Aggarwal, Jing Gao, Jiawei Han, and Bhavani Thuraisingham

  79. [86]

    Tomas Mikolov, Kai Chen, Greg Corrado, and Jeffrey Dean. 2013. Efficient Estimation of Word Representations in Vector Space. arXiv:1301.3781 [cs.CL] https://arxiv.org/abs/1301.3781

    2013 arXiv

  80. [87]

    Mitchell

    Tom M. Mitchell. 1977. Version spaces: a candidate elimination approach to rule learning. In Proceedings of the 5th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence - Volume 1 (Cambridge, USA) (IJCAI’77). Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Francisco, CA, USA, 305–310

    1977

  81. [88]

    Moyano, Eva L

    Jose M. Moyano, Eva L. Gibaja, Krzysztof J. Cios, and Sebastián Ventura. 2018. Review of ensembles of multi- label classifiers: Models, experimental study and prospects. Information Fusion 44 (Nov. 2018), 33–45. https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.inffus.2017.12.001

    2018 doi

  82. [89]

    Xin Mu, Feida Zhu, Yue Liu, Ee-Peng Lim, and Zhi-Hua Zhou. 2018. Social Stream Classification with Emerging New Labels. Springer International Publishing, 16–28. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-93034-3_2

    2018 doi

  83. [91]

    Tien Thanh Nguyen, Thi Thu Thuy Nguyen, Anh Vu Luong, Quoc Viet Hung Nguyen, Alan Wee-Chung Liew, and Bela Stantic. 2019. Multi-label classification via label correlation and first order feature dependance in a data stream. Pattern Recognition 90 (June 2019), 35–51. https://do...

    2019 doi

  84. [92]

    Thi Thu Thuy Nguyen, Tien Thanh Nguyen, Alan Wee-Chung Liew, and Shi-Lin Wang. 2018. Variational inference based bayes online classifiers with concept drift adaptation. Pattern Recognition 81 (Sept. 2018), 280–293. https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.patcog.2018.04.007

    2018 doi

  85. [94]

    Victor Gomes De Oliveira Martins Nicola, Karina Valdivia Delgado, and Marcelo De Souza Lauretto. 2024. Imbalance- Robust Multi-Label Self-Adjusting kNN. ACM Transactions on Knowledge Discovery from Data 18 (7 2024). Issue 8. https://doi.org/10.1145/3663575

    2024 doi

  86. [95]

    Aljaž Osojnik, Panče Panov, and Sašo Džeroski. 2016. Multi-label classification via multi-target regression on data streams. Machine Learning 106, 6 (Dec. 2016), 745–770. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10994-016-5613-5 J. ACM, Vol. 1, No. 1, Article . Publication date: August 2025. ...

    2016 doi

  87. [96]

    E. S. Page. 1954. Continuous Inspection Schemes. Biometrika 41, 1/2 (June 1954), 100. https://doi.org/10.2307/2333009

    1954 doi

  88. [97]

    In 2019 Eleventh International Conference on Advanced Computational Intelligence (ICACI)

    An Online Variational Inference and Ensemble Based Multi-label Classifier for Data Streams. In 2019 Eleventh International Conference on Advanced Computational Intelligence (ICACI) . IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/icaci.2019. 8778594

    2019 doi

  89. [98]

    Hanchuan Peng, Fuhui Long, and C. Ding. 2005. Feature selection based on mutual information criteria of max- dependency, max-relevance, and min-redundancy. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 27, 8 (Aug. 2005), 1226–1238. https://doi.org/10.1109/tpam...

    2005 doi

  90. [99]

    Mark Petticrew and Helen Roberts. 2006. Systematic Reviews in the Social Sciences: A Practical Guide . Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470754887

    2006 doi

  91. [100]

    Joshua Plasse and Niall Adams. 2016. Handling delayed labels in temporally evolving data streams. In 2016 IEEE International Conference on Big Data (Big Data) . 2416–2424. https://doi.org/10.1109/BigData.2016.7840877

    2016

  92. [101]

    Yannis Papanikolaou, Grigorios Tsoumakas, Manos Laliotis, Nikos Markantonatos, and Ioannis Vlahavas. 2017. Large-scale online semantic indexing of biomedical articles via an ensemble of multi-label classification models. Journal of Biomedical Semantics 8, 1 (Sept. 2017). https...

    2017 doi

  93. [102]

    Shiyuan Qiu, Peipei Li, and Xuegang Hu. 2022. Semi-Supervised Online Kernel Extreme Learning Machine for Multi-Label Data Stream Classification. In 2022 International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN) . IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ijcnn55064.2022.9892701

    2022

  94. [103]

    Ross Quinlan

    J. Ross Quinlan. 1993. C4.5: Programs for Machine Learning . Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Francisco, CA, USA

    1993

  95. [104]

    Jesse Read, Bernhard Pfahringer, and Geoff Holmes. 2008. Multi-label Classification Using Ensembles of Pruned Sets. In 2008 Eighth IEEE International Conference on Data Mining . IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/icdm.2008.74

    2008 doi

  96. [105]

    John L Popplestone, Charles H Hsiao, and Irving J Lustig. 1971. Automatic Classification: Relationship Between Probability Estimates and Categorization. IBM Journal of Research and Development 15, 4 (1971), 378–385

    1971

  97. [106]

    Jesse Read, Bernhard Pfahringer, Geoff Holmes, and Eibe Frank. 2011. Classifier chains for multi-label classification. Machine Learning 85, 3 (June 2011), 333–359. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10994-011-5256-5

    2011 doi

  98. [107]

    Jesse Read, Peter Reutemann, Bernhard Pfahringer, and Geoff Holmes. 2016. MEKA: A Multi-label/Multi-target Extension to WEKA. Journal of Machine Learning Research 17, 21 (2016), 1–5. http://jmlr.org/papers/v17/12-164.html

    2016

  99. [108]

    Martha Roseberry and Alberto Cano. 2018. Multi-label kNN Classifier with Self Adjusting Memory for Drifting Data Streams. In Proceedings of the Second International Workshop on Learning with Imbalanced Domains: Theory and Applications (Proceedings of Machine Learning Research,...

    2018

  100. [109]

    Jesse Read, Bernhard Pfahringer, Geoff Holmes, and Eibe Frank. 2009. Classifier Chains for Multi-label Classification . Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 254–269. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-04174-7_17

    2009 doi

  101. [110]

    Martha Roseberry, Bartosz Krawczyk, and Alberto Cano. 2019. Multi-Label Punitive kNN with Self-Adjusting Memory for Drifting Data Streams. ACM Transactions on Knowledge Discovery from Data 13, 6 (Nov. 2019), 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1145/3363573

    2019 doi

  102. [111]

    http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML

    Martha Roseberry, Bartosz Krawczyk, Youcef Djenouri, and Alberto Cano. 2021. Self-adjusting <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" al- timg="si9.svg"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>k</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math> nearest neighbors for continual learning from multi-label ...

    2021 doi

  103. [112]

    Rosenblatt

    F. Rosenblatt. 1958. The perceptron: A probabilistic model for information storage and organization in the brain. Psychological Review 65, 6 (1958), 386–408. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0042519

    1958 doi

  104. [113]

    Martha Roseberry, Saso Dzeroski, Albert Bifet, and Alberto Cano. 2023. Aging and rejuvenating strategies for fading windows in multi-label classification on data streams. In Proceedings of the 38th ACM/SIGAPP Symposium on Applied Computing (SAC ’23). ACM. https://doi.org/10.11...

    2023

  105. [114]

    Schapire and Yoram Singer

    Robert E. Schapire and Yoram Singer. 1999. Machine Learning 37, 3 (1999), 297–336. https://doi.org/10.1023/a: 1007614523901

    1999 doi

  106. [115]

    Schlimmer and Douglas Fisher

    Jeffrey C. Schlimmer and Douglas Fisher. 1986. A case study of incremental concept induction. In Proceedings of the Fifth AAAI National Conference on Artificial Intelligence (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania) (AAAI’86). AAAI Press, 496–501

    1986

  107. [116]

    2016.Online Multi-label Classification with Adaptive Model Rules

    Ricardo Sousa and João Gama. 2016.Online Multi-label Classification with Adaptive Model Rules. Springer International Publishing, 58–67. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-44636-3_6

    2016 doi

  108. [117]

    Tidake and Shirish S

    Vaishali S. Tidake and Shirish S. Sane. 2018. Multi-label Classification: a survey. International Journal of Engineering and Technology 7, 4.19 (Nov. 2018), 1045. https://doi.org/10.14419/ijet.v7i4.19.28284

    2018 doi

  109. [118]

    Yange Sun, Han Shao, and Shasha Wang. 2019. Efficient Ensemble Classification for Multi-Label Data Streams with Concept Drift. Information 10, 5 (April 2019), 158. https://doi.org/10.3390/info10050158

    2019 doi

  110. [119]

    Muhammad Atif Tahir, Josef Kittler, and Ahmed Bouridane. 2012. Multilabel classification using heterogeneous ensemble of multi-label classifiers. Pattern Recognition Letters 33, 5 (April 2012), 513–523. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. J. ACM, Vol. 1, No. 1, Article . Publication da...

    2012 doi

  111. [120]

    Jiakang Tang, Wei Zhou, and Hanbing Sun. 2024. Application Research of Multi-label Learning Under Concept Drift . 399–408. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-7502-0_44

    2024 doi

  112. [121]

    Ricardo Sousa and João Gama. 2018. Multi-label classification from high-speed data streams with adaptive model rules and random rules. Progress in Artificial Intelligence 7, 3 (Jan. 2018), 177–187. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13748-018-0142-z

    2018 doi

  113. [122]

    Vlahavas

    Grigorios Tsoumakas, Anastasios Dimou, Eleftherios Spyromitros, Vasileios Mezaris, Ioannis Kompatsiaris, and Ioannis P. Vlahavas. 2009. Correlation-Based Pruning of Stacked Binary Relevance Models for Multi-Label Learning. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:7802133

    2009

  114. [123]

    Grigorios Tsoumakas and Ioannis Katakis. 2007. Multi-Label Classification. Int. J. Data Warehous. Min. 3, 3 (July 2007), 1–13

    2007

  115. [124]

    Grigorios Tsoumakas and Ioannis Katakis. 2007. Multi-Label Classification: An Overview. International Journal of Data Warehousing and Mining 3, 3 (July 2007), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.4018/jdwm.2007070101

    2007 doi

  116. [125]

    Hui Tian, Lulu Wang, Hong Shen, and Alan Wee-Chung Liew. 2022. Improved Ensemble Classification for Evolving Data Streams. IEEE Intelligent Systems 37, 1 (Jan. 2022), 38–50. https://doi.org/10.1109/mis.2020.3033322

    2022

  117. [126]

    2007.Random k-Labelsets: An Ensemble Method for Multilabel Classification

    Grigorios Tsoumakas and Ioannis Vlahavas. 2007.Random k-Labelsets: An Ensemble Method for Multilabel Classification. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 406–417. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-74958-5_38

    2007 doi

  118. [127]

    Rajasekar Venkatesan, Meng Joo Er, Mihika Dave, Mahardhika Pratama, and Shiqian Wu. 2017. A novel online multi-label classifier for high-speed streaming data applications. Evolving Systems 8, 4 (Aug. 2017), 303–315. https: //doi.org/10.1007/s12530-016-9162-8

    2017 doi

  119. [128]

    Lulu Wang, Hong Shen, and Hui Tian. 2017. Weighted Ensemble Classification of Multi-label Data Streams . Springer International Publishing, 551–562. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-57529-2_43

    2017 doi

  120. [129]

    Vlahavas

    Grigorios Tsoumakas, Ioannis Manousos Katakis, and Ioannis P. Vlahavas. 2008. Effective and Efficient Multilabel Classification in Domains with Large Number of Labels. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:8727032

    2008

  121. [130]

    Xihui Wang, Pascale Kuntz, Frank Meyer, and Vincent Lemaire. 2021. Multi-Label kNN classifier with Online Dual Memory on data stream. In 2021 International Conference on Data Mining Workshops (ICDMW) . IEEE. https: //doi.org/10.1109/icdmw53433.2021.00056

    2021

  122. [131]

    Wankhade, Snehlata S

    Kapil K. Wankhade, Snehlata S. Dongre, and Kalpana C. Jondhale. 2020. Data stream classification: a review. Iran Journal of Computer Science 3, 4 (May 2020), 239–260. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42044-020-00061-3

    2020 doi

  123. [132]

    Scott Wares, John Isaacs, and Eyad Elyan. 2019. Data stream mining: methods and challenges for handling concept drift. SN Applied Sciences 1, 11 (Oct. 2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42452-019-1433-0

    2019 doi

  124. [133]

    Lun Wang, Wentao Xiao, and Shan Ye. 2019. Dynamic Multi-label Learning with Multiple New Labels . Springer International Publishing, 421–431. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-34113-8_35

    2019 doi

  125. [134]

    Hongxin Wu, Meng Han, Zhiqiang Chen, Muhang Li, and Xilong Zhang. 2023. A Weighted Ensemble Classification Algorithm Based on Nearest Neighbors for Multi-Label Data Stream. ACM Transactions on Knowledge Discovery from Data 17, 5 (Feb. 2023), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1145/3570960

    2023 doi

  126. [135]

    Qingyao Wu, Yunming Ye, Haijun Zhang, Tommy W. S. Chow, and Shen-Shyang Ho. 2015. ML-TREE: A Tree- Structure-Based Approach to Multilabel Learning. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems 26, 3 (March 2015), 430–443. https://doi.org/10.1109/tnnls.2014.2315296

    2015

  127. [136]

    Xi-Zhu Wu and Zhi-Hua Zhou. 2017. A unified view of multi-label performance measures. In Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Machine Learning - Volume 70 (Sydney, NSW, Australia)(ICML’17). JMLR.org, 3780–3788

    2017

  128. [137]

    Tong Wei, Jiang Xin Shi, and Yu Feng Li. 2021. Probabilistic Label Tree for Streaming Multi-Label Learning. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining . Association for Computing Machinery, 1801–1811. https://doi.org/10.114...

    2021

  129. [138]

    Yapp, Xiang Li, Wen Feng Lu, and Puay Siew Tan

    Edward K.Y. Yapp, Xiang Li, Wen Feng Lu, and Puay Siew Tan. 2020. Comparison of base classifiers for multi-label learning. Neurocomputing 394 (June 2020), 51–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neucom.2020.01.102

    2020 doi

  130. [139]

    Onur Yildirim, Sepehr Bakhshi, and Fazli Can. 2024. Prioritized Binary Transformation Method for Efficient Multi- label Classification of Data Streams with Many Labels. In International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, Proceedings. Association for Computing ...

    2024

  131. [140]

    Wang Zhan and Min-Ling Zhang. 2017. Inductive Semi-supervised Multi-Label Learning with Co-Training. In Proceedings of the 23rd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD ’17) . ACM, 1305–1314. https://doi.org/10.1145/3097983.3098141

    2017

  132. [141]

    Tsang, Yew-Soon Ong, Chen Gong, and Xiaobo Shen

    Donna Xu, Yaxin Shi, Ivor W. Tsang, Yew-Soon Ong, Chen Gong, and Xiaobo Shen. 2019. Survey on Multi-Output Learning. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems (2019), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1109/tnnls. 2019.2945133

    2019

  133. [142]

    Min-Ling Zhang and Zhi-Hua Zhou. 2006. Multilabel Neural Networks with Applications to Functional Genomics and Text Categorization. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 18, 10 (Oct. 2006), 1338–1351. https://doi.org/10.1109/tkde.2006.162 J. ACM, Vol. 1, No. 1, A...

    2006 doi

  134. [143]

    Min-Ling Zhang and Zhi-Hua Zhou. 2007. ML-KNN: A lazy learning approach to multi-label learning. Pattern Recognition 40, 7 (July 2007), 2038–2048. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patcog.2006.12.019

    2007 doi

  135. [144]

    Xiulin Zheng and Peipei Li. 2021. An Efficient Framework for Multi-Label Learning in Non-stationary Data Stream. In 2021 IEEE International Conference on Big Knowledge (ICBK) . IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ickg52313.2021.00029

    2021

  136. [145]

    Min-Ling Zhang. 2009. Ml-rbf: RBF Neural Networks for Multi-Label Learning. Neural Processing Letters 29, 2 (Feb. 2009), 61–74. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11063-009-9095-3

    2009 doi

  137. [146]

    Yue Zhu, Kai Ming Ting, and Zhi-Hua Zhou. 2018. Multi-Label Learning with Emerging New Labels.IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 30, 10 (Oct. 2018), 1901–1914. https://doi.org/10.1109/tkde.2018.2810872

    2018

  138. [147]

    Yizhang Zou, Xuegang Hu, and Peipei Li. 2023. Online Multi-Label Classification with Scalable Margin Robust to Missing Labels. In Proceedings - IEEE International Conference on Knowledge Graph, ICKG 2023 . Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc., 274–281. https:...

    2023

  139. [148]

    Yizhang Zou, Xuegang Hu, Peipei Li, and Jun Hu. 2024. Weak Multi-Label Data Stream Classification Under Distribution Changes in Labels. IEEE Transactions on Big Data (2024). https://doi.org/10.1109/TBDATA.2024.3453760 J. ACM, Vol. 1, No. 1, Article . Publication date: August 2025

    2024

  140. [149]

    Xiulin Zheng, Peipei Li, Zhe Chu, and Xuegang Hu. 2020. A Survey on Multi-Label Data Stream Classification. IEEE Access 8 (2020), 1249–1275. https://doi.org/10.1109/access.2019.2962059

    2020

  141. [2010]

    In 2010 IEEE International Conference on Data Mining

    Addressing Concept-Evolution in Concept-Drifting Data Streams. In 2010 IEEE International Conference on Data Mining. IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/icdm.2010.160

    2010 doi

  142. [2012]

    In 2012 IEEE 12th International Conference on Data Mining

    Stream Classification with Recurring and Novel Class Detection Using Class-Based Ensemble. In 2012 IEEE 12th International Conference on Data Mining . IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/icdm.2012.125 J. ACM, Vol. 1, No. 1, Article . Publication date: August 2025. 42 Freire-Oliveira �� ���

    2012 doi

  143. [2019]

    Pattern Recognition 95 (Nov

    Multi-label classification via incremental clustering on an evolving data stream. Pattern Recognition 95 (Nov. 2019), 96–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patcog.2019.06.001

    2019 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.