Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Correlation-Aware Graph Convolutional Networks for Multi-Label Node Classification

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Per-label graph decomposition with correlation-aware convolution lifts multi-label node classification accuracy on all five tested datasets, with Macro-AUC gains up to 6.43%.

desk verdict New per-label graph decomposition that mostly works, but the paper overclaims on Delve and Eq. (4) is not a contrastive loss as written. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.17350 v3 pith:CGGVWCEJ submitted 2024-11-26 cs.LG cs.SI

Yuanchen Bei , Weizhi Chen , Hao Chen , Sheng Zhou , Carl Yang , Jiapei Fan , Longtao Huang , Jiajun Bu This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LGcs.SI
keywords multi-labelnodeclassificationgraphconvolutionalnetworksstructurelearninglabelcorrelationdecompositionmessagepassingcontrastivesemi-supervised
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

Multi-label node classification fails when a graph convolution treats every edge and feature as if it carried one clear label: real nodes belong to many categories, so neighborhoods and features are ambiguous, and messages get mixed. The paper argues that the fix is to decompose the graph per label — build a separate label-aware graph for each class — while keeping related labels connected, then let messages flow within each label view and between views. It proposes CorGCN, which does exactly this, and reports that it beats nine baselines on five datasets, with Macro-AUC gains of 6.43%, 2.92%, 2.23%, and 4.45% over the best baseline on Humloc, PCG, Blogcatalog, and PPI. A sympathetic reader would care because the approach replaces the one-graph-fits-all assumption that underlies standard GCNs in multi-label settings.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Correlation-Aware Graph Decomposition: for each label k, node features are projected onto the k-th label prototype, neighborhood-aggregated, and an edge is kept only if the cosine similarity of the aggregated projected features is among the node's Top-λ scores, yielding K label-aware graphs plus the original multi-label graph. This decomposition converts the ambiguous shared topology into label-specific message-passing paths. Carrying the second half is the Correlation-Enhanced Graph Convolution, whose inter-label propagation computes a per-node K×K correlation matrix from label-prototype and message similarities and uses it to mix messages across label views. The named components are the Correlation-Aware Graph Decomposition (CDG) and the Correlation-Enhanced Graph Convolution.

What would settle it

Replace the cosine-similarity edge selection in Eq. (10) with random selection of the same number λ of neighbors per node, retrain on Humloc, and compare Macro-AUC: if the score stays near the reported 77.31, the label-aware graph structure is not the source of the improvement; if it drops toward the 72.64 of the best baseline, the decomposition mechanism is confirmed as load-bearing.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that multi-label node classification is held back by two ambiguities — features and topology — that standard GCN message passing compounds, and that both can be reduced by learning one graph per label. CorGCN first projects node features toward label prototypes learned with a contrastive mutual-information objective and a focal likelihood decoder, then, for each label k, keeps only the edges whose cosine similarity in projected space is in the Top-λ for each node, producing label-aware graphs. Convolution runs twice: intra-label message passing on each label view, then inter-label correlation propagation that reweights each node's label messages by a softmax over prototype correlations. The paper reports that this beats the best baseline by 2.23% to 6.43% Macro-AUC on four datasets, and also improves over the backbone across GCN, GAT, SAGE, GIN, and SGC message-passing schemes.

Load-bearing premise

The per-label graphs are chosen by keeping, for each node, only the Top-λ neighbors by cosine similarity of aggregated projected features, and if that ranking does not reflect true label-relevant adjacency, the decomposed graphs propagate the wrong messages and the reported gains disappear, with λ itself hand-tuned per dataset.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • On Humloc, PCG, Blogcatalog, and PPI, CorGCN raises Macro-AUC by 6.43%, 2.92%, 2.23%, and 4.45% over the best baseline respectively.
  • The decomposition is not tied to GCN: equipping GAT, SAGE, GIN, and SGC with CorGCN improves Micro-AUC by averages of 3.50% and 3.15% on Humloc and PCG.
  • Ablations show that removing the decomposed graph, the feature decomposition, the structure decomposition, the intra-label passing, or the inter-label propagation each hurts performance, so both the decomposition and the correlation propagation contribute to the gain.
  • On large-label-space datasets (PPI with 121 labels and Delve), clustering prototypes into macro labels (20 and 10 respectively) keeps performance close to the full label count while cutting per-label computation.
  • CorGCN trains faster than the top baselines on Humloc (0.76s versus 15.79s per epoch for ML-GCN) but is slower at inference (0.57s versus 0.49s), a trade-off the paper reports alongside the accuracy gains.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the per-label decomposition is a generic front-end — any message-passing backbone could consume the K label-aware graphs, so the same idea may transfer to link prediction or anomaly detection on multi-label graphs without retraining the decomposition.
  • Editorial inference: because the quality of the label-aware graphs hinges on the Top-λ ranking, a testable extension is to replace the hard Top-λ mask with a soft, learned neighbor selector; the paper's own w/o CSD ablation suggests the mask is doing real work, so a soft version might preserve gains with fewer hyperparameters.
  • Editorial inference: the macro-prototype extension implies the method's complexity scales with the number of meta-labels rather than raw labels, which could open very-large-label-space applications beyond the 121-label PPI setting tested.
  • Editorial inference: if the mechanism is truly about reducing ambiguity, the gains should be largest on graphs with low multi-label homophily (edge-connected nodes sharing few labels); that is a directly testable prediction the paper does not run.
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. The paper proposes CorGCN, a Graph Convolutional Network for multi-label node classification. The method has two main modules: a Correlation-Aware Graph Decomposition that learns label prototypes, projects node features into per-label views via cosine-similarity coefficients, and sparsifies the original adjacency into per-label graphs using Top-λ selection; and a Correlation-Enhanced Graph Convolution that performs intra-label message passing on each label view followed by inter-label correlation propagation via attention over label prototypes. The model is trained with a sum of binary cross-entropy, a contrastive mutual-information loss (Eq. 4), and a focal-style likelihood loss (Eq. 6). Experiments on Humloc, PCG, Blogcatalog, PPI, and Delve report seven multi-label metrics against nine baselines, plus ablations, a backbone-generalization study, and parameter studies. The paper claims significant improvements over state-of-the-art methods on all five datasets.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the paper addresses a real gap: existing multi-label node classifiers use a unified message-passing process over ambiguous features and topology, and CorGCN's explicit per-label graph decomposition plus inter-label correlation propagation is a plausible remedy. The paper includes useful empirical studies: five datasets, seven metrics, ablations of the decomposition and convolution modules, generalization across five GNN backbones, and a complexity analysis. The method also attains the best average ranking over all baselines in Table 2. However, the headline claim of universal superiority is contradicted by the Delve results, and the key training signal for the label prototypes, Eq. (4), is degenerate as written. These issues must be resolved before the empirical and mechanistic claims can be accepted.

major comments (4)
  1. [§5.2, Table 2] The statement that "CorGCN can achieve significant improvements over state-of-the-art methods on all experimental datasets" is contradicted by the Delve columns: LARN outperforms CorGCN on all seven metrics, e.g., LRAP 92.09 vs 89.20, Macro-AP 80.16 vs 72.80, and Hamming Loss 1.67 vs 2.48. The subsequent sentence listing Macro-AUC gains of 6.43%, 2.92%, 2.23%, and 4.45% correctly omits Delve, which shows the 'all datasets' claim is not supported by the table. The central claim should be revised to clearly state the four datasets on which CorGCN is the best, and the Delve result should be discussed rather than passed over.
  2. [§4.1.1, Eq. (4)] The contrastive mutual-information loss as written only involves positive labels. For a node with exactly one positive label p, the term is log(exp(s_{i,p}) / exp(s_{i,p})) = 0; for a node with multiple positives, the denominator sums only over t ∈ Pos(y_i), so the loss merely pushes the similarities to co-occurring labels toward equality. Negative labels never appear in the denominator, so this is not a contrastive estimator and cannot provide the discriminative signal claimed for learning label prototypes. The authors should either correct the denominator to include negatives (e.g., all labels or sampled negatives) or explicitly identify L_lm and L_cls as the sources of prototype discrimination. Since the Github link in §5.1.3 is a placeholder, the intended formulation cannot be verified from the paper.
  3. [§5.3, Figure 3] The ablation study removes whole modules (w/o CFD, w/o CSD, w/o Intra, w/o Inter), but it does not isolate the contribution of the three loss terms in Eq. (20). Given the issue with Eq. (4), the reported performance drops from the decomposition modules could be attributed to extra model capacity or the hand-tuned Top-λ construction rather than the claimed contrastive label-correlation mechanism. Please add an ablation that removes L_cmi (or replaces it with a proper contrastive objective) while keeping the rest of the architecture unchanged, so the role of Eq. (4) can be assessed.
  4. [§5.7.1 and Table 5] The text states that "the suitable value of λ for Humloc is larger than the value for PCG," but Table 5 reports Humloc λ=7 and PCG λ=19, which is the opposite. This inconsistency makes the parameter study and the exact experimental settings difficult to trust. Please correct the text or the table.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Throughout] There are repeated typos where "ambiguous" is written as "ambitious," for example in §5.2 ("unified message passing with ambitious information") and §5.4 ("message passing paradigms in these backbones all remain ambitious").
  2. [§4.1.1, Eq. (4)] The notation "t ∈ y_i" is undefined for a multi-hot vector; it should be "t ∈ Pos(y_i)" or the set of positive label indices should be defined explicitly for the summation.
  3. [§5.2] The Bonferroni-Dunn test is mentioned but the corresponding critical-difference diagram or post-hoc p-values are not shown; please provide the actual post-hoc results or state the comparison procedure used.
  4. [§5.6, Table 4] The sentence "the end-to-end label correlation modeling strategy employed by CorGCN yields an efficiency that is second to that of the original GCN" is awkward and should be rephrased for clarity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: CorGCN is an end-to-end empirical architecture; hyperparameter tuning and related-work self-citations do not make the result equivalent to its inputs.

full rationale

CorGCN is an empirical architecture evaluated on five public benchmarks. The derivation chain is: learn label prototypes E^l with losses L_cmi and L_lm; project node features via cosine similarity (Eqs. 7-8); build per-label graphs by Top-lambda neighbor selection (Eqs. 9-11); run intra-label and inter-label GCN message passing (Eqs. 14-16); and predict with a sigmoid classifier trained by BCE (Eqs. 17-19). No stage reuses test labels or fits a parameter to the target metric and then reports that same metric as a prediction. Hyperparameters lambda, K', and gamma are selected on validation data (Appendix B.3 and Table 5), which is standard model selection rather than circularity. The self-citations ([3], [8]) appear only in related-work context and are not load-bearing; the contrastive-learning design is attributed to external work [2, 48], not to the authors' own prior results. The one genuinely concerning passage is Eq. (4): as written, the denominator sums over t in y_i, i.e., only positive labels, so for a single-positive-label node the term is log(exp(s)/exp(s)) = 0, and the loss is not a contrastive objective that separates associated from unassociated labels. This is a correctness and reproducibility concern about the claimed training signal, and the placeholder Github link prevents verification; however, it does not make the final predictions equal to the training labels by construction, and the ablation study still tests the module's contribution empirically. The claim in Section 5.2 that CorGCN improves over state-of-the-art on 'all experimental datasets' is also contradicted by several Delve metrics where LARN is stronger, but that is an accuracy/consistency issue rather than circularity. Overall, no circular step is established.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities or dimensions are introduced; 'label-aware graphs' and 'macro label prototypes' are model components built from existing features and learned prototypes, not independently evidenced postulates.

free parameters (3)
  • lambda (λ) = 7 (Humloc), 19 (PCG), 5 (Blogcatalog, PPI, Delve)
    Top-λ neighbor threshold for each label-specific graph (Eq. 11); tuned per dataset from 1 to 20.
  • K' (macro prototype count) = 20 (PPI), 10 (Delve)
    Number of clustered label prototypes for large label space (Sec. 4.4); tuned from 1 to 20.
  • gamma (γ) = 2.0 (all datasets, Table 5)
    Focal loss focusing parameter in L_lm (Eq. 6); Appendix D suggests 1.5 is better on LRAP, so the value is not consistently optimal.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math The GCN message passing in Eq. (14) is a valid propagation operator on each label-specific graph.
    Relies on the Kipf & Welling GCN definition as a backbone; no proof is given that per-view normalized adjacency works, but it is a direct application.
  • domain assumption Label correlation is encoded by dot-product similarity between node features and label prototypes.
    Assumes that contrastive training on labeled nodes (Eq. 4) yields prototypes that generalize to unlabeled nodes and that cosine similarity (Eq. 7, 10) ranks label-relevant relations.
  • ad hoc to paper The contrastive loss in Eq. (4) is a valid mutual information estimator for label correlations.
    The loss's denominator runs over positive labels only, so it does not implement the positive/negative contrast described in the text; its claimed ability to model correlations is not demonstrated.
  • ad hoc to paper The Top-λ graph sparsification (Eq. 11) retains all edges needed for each label view.
    Hard thresholding by cosine similarity may drop relevant edges or keep irrelevant ones; no analysis is provided for when this holds.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Correlation-Aware Graph Convolutional Networks for Multi-Label Node Classification." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CGGVWCEJ

@misc{pith2026241117350,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Correlation-Aware Graph Convolutional Networks for Multi-Label Node Classification},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CGGVWCEJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.17350}
}
read the original abstract

Multi-label node classification is an important yet under-explored domain in graph mining as many real-world nodes belong to multiple categories rather than just a single one. Although a few efforts have been made by utilizing Graph Convolution Networks (GCNs) to learn node representations and model correlations between multiple labels in the embedding space, they still suffer from the ambiguous feature and ambiguous topology induced by multiple labels, which reduces the credibility of the messages delivered in graphs and overlooks the label correlations on graph data. Therefore, it is crucial to reduce the ambiguity and empower the GCNs for accurate classification. However, this is quite challenging due to the requirement of retaining the distinctiveness of each label while fully harnessing the correlation between labels simultaneously. To address these issues, in this paper, we propose a Correlation-aware Graph Convolutional Network (CorGCN) for multi-label node classification. By introducing a novel Correlation-Aware Graph Decomposition module, CorGCN can learn a graph that contains rich label-correlated information for each label. It then employs a Correlation-Enhanced Graph Convolution to model the relationships between labels during message passing to further bolster the classification process. Extensive experiments on five datasets demonstrate the effectiveness of our proposed CorGCN.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.17350 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a) A toy example of multi-label node classification [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The overall architecture of CorGCN. (a) Correlation-Aware Graph Decomposition: it first learns label-correlated node [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Abalation study on CorGCN with its five variants. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Generalization study results of CorGCN in different [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Case study of class AUC performance on Humloc. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Convergence analysis on (a)-(b) the training classi [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Parameter study results on 𝛾 of CorGCN [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png]

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. LightKG: Efficient Knowledge-Aware Recommendations with Simplified GNN Architecture

    cs.IR 2025-06 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    LightKG, a simplified GNN recommender with scalar relation weights and an efficient contrastive loss, outperforms 12 knowledge-graph-aware baselines on four datasets, especially under sparse interactions, while cuttin...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Junwen Bai, Shufeng Kong, and Carla Gomes. 2021. Disentangled variational autoencoder based multi-label classification with covariance-aware multivariate KDD ’25, August 3–7, 2025, Toronto, ON, Canada Yuanchen Bei et al. probit model. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Ninth International Conference on International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence ...

    work page 2021

  2. [2]

    Junwen Bai, Shufeng Kong, and Carla P Gomes. 2022. Gaussian mixture vari- ational autoencoder with contrastive learning for multi-label classification. In International Conference on Machine Learning . PMLR, 1383–1398

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    Yuanchen Bei, Sheng Zhou, Qiaoyu Tan, Hao Xu, Hao Chen, Zhao Li, and Jiajun Bu. 2023. Reinforcement neighborhood selection for unsupervised graph anomaly detection. In 2023 IEEE International Conference on Data Mining (ICDM) . IEEE, 11–20

    work page 2023

  4. [4]

    Smriti Bhagat, Graham Cormode, and S Muthukrishnan. 2011. Node classification in social networks. Social network data analytics (2011), 115–148

    work page 2011

  5. [5]

    Jasmin Bogatinovski, Ljupčo Todorovski, Sašo Džeroski, and Dragi Kocev. 2022. Comprehensive comparative study of multi-label classification methods. Expert Systems with Applications 203 (2022), 117215

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    Matthew R Boutell, Jiebo Luo, Xipeng Shen, and Christopher M Brown. 2004. Learning multi-label scene classification. Pattern recognition 37, 9 (2004), 1757– 1771

    work page 2004

  7. [7]

    Hongyun Cai, Vincent W Zheng, and Kevin Chen-Chuan Chang. 2018. A com- prehensive survey of graph embedding: Problems, techniques, and applications. IEEE transactions on knowledge and data engineering 30, 9 (2018), 1616–1637

    work page 2018

  8. [8]

    Hao Chen, Yuanchen Bei, Qijie Shen, Yue Xu, Sheng Zhou, Wenbing Huang, Feiran Huang, Senzhang Wang, and Xiao Huang. 2024. Macro graph neural networks for online billion-scale recommender systems. In Proceedings of the ACM on Web Conference 2024. 3598–3608

    2024

Show all 53 references
  1. [9]

    Yu Chen, Lingfei Wu, and Mohammed Zaki. 2020. Iterative deep graph learning for graph neural networks: Better and robust node embeddings. Advances in neural information processing systems 33 (2020), 19314–19326

    2020

  2. [10]

    Thibaut Durand, Nazanin Mehrasa, and Greg Mori. 2019. Learning a deep convnet for multi-label classification with partial labels. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition . 647–657

    2019

  3. [11]

    Kaisheng Gao, Jing Zhang, and Cangqi Zhou. 2019. Semi-supervised Graph Embedding for Multi-label Graph Node Classification. InWeb Information Systems Engineering – WISE 2019 . Springer International Publishing, Cham, 555–567

    2019

  4. [12]

    Ziqi Gao, Chenran Jiang, Jiawen Zhang, Xiaosen Jiang, Lanqing Li, Peilin Zhao, Huanming Yang, Yong Huang, and Jia Li. 2023. Hierarchical graph learning for protein–protein interaction. Nature Communications 14, 1 (2023), 1093

    2023

  5. [13]

    Weifeng Ge, Sibei Yang, and Yizhou Yu. 2018. Multi-evidence filtering and fusion for multi-label classification, object detection and semantic segmentation based on weakly supervised learning. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition . 1277–1286

    2018

  6. [14]

    Aditya Grover and Jure Leskovec. 2016. node2vec: Scalable feature learning for networks. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining . 855–864

    2016

  7. [15]

    Greg Hamerly and Charles Elkan. 2003. Learning the k in k-means. Advances in neural information processing systems 16 (2003)

    2003

  8. [16]

    Will Hamilton, Zhitao Ying, and Jure Leskovec. 2017. Inductive Representation Learning on Large Graphs. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , Vol. 30

    2017

  9. [17]

    Xiaoyang Jing and Jinbo Xu. 2021. Fast and effective protein model refinement using deep graph neural networks. Nature computational science 1, 7 (2021), 462–469

    2021

  10. [18]

    Kipf and Max Welling

    Thomas N. Kipf and Max Welling. 2017. Semi-Supervised Classification with Graph Convolutional Networks. In International Conference on Learning Repre- sentations

    2017

  11. [19]

    Zhixun Li, Xin Sun, Yifan Luo, Yanqiao Zhu, Dingshuo Chen, Yingtao Luo, Xi- angxin Zhou, Qiang Liu, Shu Wu, Liang Wang, et al . 2024. GSLB: the graph structure learning benchmark. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 36 (2024)

    2024

  12. [20]

    Tsung-Yi Lin, Priya Goyal, Ross Girshick, Kaiming He, and Piotr Dollár. 2017. Focal loss for dense object detection. In Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision . 2980–2988

    2017

  13. [21]

    Jingzhou Liu, Wei-Cheng Chang, Yuexin Wu, and Yiming Yang. 2017. Deep learning for extreme multi-label text classification. In Proceedings of the 40th international ACM SIGIR conference on research and development in information retrieval. 115–124

    2017

  14. [22]

    Weiwei Liu, Haobo Wang, Xiaobo Shen, and Ivor W Tsang. 2021. The emerging trends of multi-label learning. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence 44, 11 (2021), 7955–7974

    2021

  15. [23]

    Yixin Liu, Yu Zheng, Daokun Zhang, Hongxu Chen, Hao Peng, and Shirui Pan

  16. [24]

    Jesse Read, Bernhard Pfahringer, Geoff Holmes, and Eibe Frank. 2009. Classifier chains for multi-label classification. InMachine Learning and Knowledge Discovery in Databases: European Conference, ECML PKDD 2009, Bled, Slovenia, September 7-11, 2009, Proceedings, Part II 20 . ...

    2009

  17. [25]

    Yu Rong, Yatao Bian, Tingyang Xu, Weiyang Xie, Ying Wei, Wenbing Huang, and Junzhou Huang. 2020. Self-supervised graph transformer on large-scale molecular data. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 33 (2020), 12559–12571

    2020

  18. [26]

    Zixing Song, Ziqiao Meng, Yifei Zhang, and Irwin King. 2021. Semi-supervised multi-label learning for graph-structured data. In Proceedings of the 30th ACM International Conference on Information & Knowledge Management . 1723–1733

    2021

  19. [27]

    Peijie Sun, Le Wu, and Meng Wang. 2018. Attentive recurrent social recommen- dation. In The 41st international ACM SIGIR conference on research & development in information retrieval. 185–194

    2018

  20. [28]

    Adane Nega Tarekegn, Mohib Ullah, and Faouzi Alaya Cheikh. 2024. Deep learning for multi-label learning: A comprehensive survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.16549 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Petar Veličković, Guillem Cucurull, Arantxa Casanova, Adriana Romero, Pietro Lio, and Yoshua Bengio. 2018. Graph attention networks. In The International Conference on Learning Representations

    2018

  22. [30]

    Hongwei Wang and Jure Leskovec. 2021. Combining graph convolutional neural networks and label propagation. ACM Transactions on Information Systems (TOIS) 40, 4 (2021), 1–27

    2021

  23. [31]

    Jiang Wang, Yi Yang, Junhua Mao, Zhiheng Huang, Chang Huang, and Wei Xu

  24. [32]

    Kaixiang Wang, Ming Yang, Wanqi Yang, and YiLong Yin. 2018. Deep correlation structure preserved label space embedding for multi-label classification. In Asian Conference on Machine Learning . PMLR, 1–16

    2018

  25. [33]

    Ya Wang, Dongliang He, Fu Li, Xiang Long, Zhichao Zhou, Jinwen Ma, and Shilei Wen. 2020. Multi-label classification with label graph superimposing. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 34. 12265–12272

    2020

  26. [34]

    Felix Wu, Amauri Souza, Tianyi Zhang, Christopher Fifty, Tao Yu, and Kilian Weinberger. 2019. Simplifying graph convolutional networks. In International conference on machine learning . PMLR, 6861–6871

    2019

  27. [35]

    Jian Wu, Victor S Sheng, Jing Zhang, Hua Li, Tetiana Dadakova, Christine Leon Swisher, Zhiming Cui, and Pengpeng Zhao. 2020. Multi-label active learning al- gorithms for image classification: Overview and future promise.ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR) 53, 2 (2020), 1–35

    2020

  28. [36]

    Shiwen Wu, Fei Sun, Wentao Zhang, Xu Xie, and Bin Cui. 2022. Graph neural networks in recommender systems: a survey. Comput. Surveys 55, 5 (2022), 1–37

    2022

  29. [37]

    Lin Xiao, Xin Huang, Boli Chen, and Liping Jing. 2019. Label-specific document representation for multi-label text classification. In Proceedings of the 2019 confer- ence on empirical methods in natural language processing and the 9th international joint conference on natural ...

    2019

  30. [38]

    Lin Xiao, Pengyu Xu, Liping Jing, Uchenna Akujuobi, and Xiangliang Zhang

  31. [39]

    Shunxin Xiao, Shiping Wang, Yuanfei Dai, and Wenzhong Guo. 2022. Graph neural networks in node classification: survey and evaluation. Machine Vision and Applications 33 (2022), 1–19

    2022

  32. [40]

    Keyulu Xu, Weihua Hu, Jure Leskovec, and Stefanie Jegelka. 2019. How Powerful are Graph Neural Networks?. In International Conference on Learning Representa- tions

    2019

  33. [41]

    Information Sciences 591 (2022), 235–250

    Semantic guide for semi-supervised few-shot multi-label node classification. Information Sciences 591 (2022), 235–250

    2022

  34. [42]

    Chih-Kuan Yeh, Wei-Chieh Wu, Wei-Jen Ko, and Yu-Chiang Frank Wang. 2017. Learning deep latent space for multi-label classification. In Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence , Vol. 31

    2017

  35. [43]

    Donghan Yu, Ruohong Zhang, Zhengbao Jiang, Yuexin Wu, and Yiming Yang

  36. [44]

    Vacit Oguz Yazici, Abel Gonzalez-Garcia, Arnau Ramisa, Bartlomiej Twardowski, and Joost van de Weijer. 2020. Orderless recurrent models for multi-label classifi- cation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. 13440–13449

    2020

  37. [45]

    Jiawei Zhang and Philip S Yu. 2018. Broad learning: An emerging area in social network analysis. ACM SIGKDD Explorations Newsletter 20, 1 (2018), 24–50

    2018

  38. [46]

    Min-Ling Zhang and Zhi-Hua Zhou. 2013. A review on multi-label learning algorithms. IEEE transactions on knowledge and data engineering 26, 8 (2013), 1819–1837

    2013

  39. [47]

    Tianqi Zhao, Thi Ngan Dong, Alan Hanjalic, and Megha Khosla. 2023. Multi-label Node Classification On Graph-Structured Data.Transactions on Machine Learning Research (2023)

    2023

  40. [48]

    Hanqing Zeng, Hongkuan Zhou, Ajitesh Srivastava, Rajgopal Kannan, and Viktor Prasanna. 2019. GraphSAINT: Graph Sampling Based Inductive Learning Method. In International Conference on Learning Representations

    2019

  41. [49]

    Cangqi Zhou, Hui Chen, Jing Zhang, Qianmu Li, Dianming Hu, and Victor S Sheng. 2021. Multi-label graph node classification with label attentive neighbor- hood convolution. Expert Systems with Applications 180 (2021), 115063. Correlation-Aware Graph Convolutional Networks for M...

    2021

  42. [52]

    Wenting Zhao, Shufeng Kong, Junwen Bai, Daniel Fink, and Carla Gomes. 2021. Hot-vae: Learning high-order label correlation for multi-label classification via attention-based variational autoencoders. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 35. 15...

    2021

  43. [2016]

    In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition

    Cnn-rnn: A unified framework for multi-label image classification. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition . 2285–2294

  44. [2021]

    In Machine Learning and Knowledge Discovery in Databases: European Conference, ECML PKDD 2020, Ghent, Belgium, September 14–18, 2020, Proceedings, Part III

    Graph-revised convolutional network. In Machine Learning and Knowledge Discovery in Databases: European Conference, ECML PKDD 2020, Ghent, Belgium, September 14–18, 2020, Proceedings, Part III . Springer, 378–393

    2020

  45. [2022]

    In Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2022

    Towards unsupervised deep graph structure learning. In Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2022. 1392–1403

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.