Multi-Label Transfer Learning in Non-Stationary Data Streams

Aonghus Lawlor; Honghui Du; Huiyu Zhou; Leandro Minku

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 39 references

Multi-Label Transfer Learning in Non-Stationary Data Streams

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that cross-label knowledge transfer makes multi-label classifiers adapt faster to concept drift, and introduces two ensembles—BR-MARLENE and BRPW-MARLENE—that use it without hyperparameter tuning.

desk verdict A credible first combination of multi-label streaming and cross-label transfer, but the central claim that transfer helps is not isolated from the weighting scheme. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.08181 v1 pith:HMNMX6EH submitted 2025-09-09 cs.LG cs.AI

Honghui Du , Leandro Minku , Aonghus Lawlor , Huiyu Zhou This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.LGcs.AI

keywords conceptdriftmulti-labelclassificationdatastreamstransferlearningclassimbalanceensembleonlinepairwiselabeldependencies

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

In a multi-label data stream, each incoming example carries several labels at once, and those labels can drift together or separately, which makes adapting harder than in ordinary single-label streams. This paper tries to establish that when labels are related, a classifier trained to recognise one label carries knowledge that helps predict another, so borrowing sub-classifiers across labels—and from external source streams—should accelerate adaptation to drift. To test this, it introduces BR-MARLENE, an online ensemble in which every target label's prediction is a weighted vote of all per-label binary classifiers, with weights learned per label, and BRPW-MARLENE, which adds pairwise label-dependency classifiers to the same voting pool. On seven real-world multi-label streams and synthetic streams with controlled abrupt and incremental drift, both methods rank ahead of eleven existing multi-label stream learners on macro, micro, and label-set G-Mean. The paper also adapts the G-Mean metric to multi-label evaluation so that minority classes are not hidden by majority-class accuracy.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is a label-specific weighted ensemble over a shared pool of per-label binary sub-classifiers. Each sub-classifier is trained on one label of one stream and receives, for every target label, its own weight α, updated online from class-balanced Positive Predictive Value and Negative Predictive Value plus an example-difficulty factor; the resulting weighted vote produces the target label's prediction. The weighting scheme is what both enables transfer (related labels can contribute) and limits negative transfer (unhelpful classifiers get small weights). BRPW-MARLENE adds pairwise dependency classifiers—one per ordered label pair, trained on features plus one label to

What would settle it

Run BR-MARLENE on the same real-world and synthetic streams with the ensemble restricted to the classifiers trained on each target label itself, keeping the same weight updates, resampling, and drift detection; if Macro/Micro/Label-set G-Mean do not drop significantly, the central claim that cross-label transfer causes the gains is false.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's discovery is that transfer learning across labels is a working strategy for multi-label data streams. The authors build the first transfer-based multi-label stream classifiers and show that they outperform existing methods in non-stationary environments. BR-MARLENE follows the binary relevance decomposition—one binary sub-classifier per label per stream—but then lets every label use the whole pool of sub-classifiers: each sub-classifier carries a set of label-specific weights, so a model trained on a related label can vote on a target label when its class-balanced reliability estimates say it is trustworthy. The weighting scheme is designed for class imbalance:

Load-bearing premise

The reported advantage is attributed to knowledge transfer between labels, but no experiment removes the cross-label classifiers while keeping the weighting scheme, so the improvement could also come from the weighting rule or from having a larger, more diverse ensemble.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Borrowing sub-classifiers from similar source streams gives a lasting accuracy gain when target data are scarce, and the gain grows as drift becomes more frequent.
Inter-label transfer alone, without any external source stream, already improves multi-label stream prediction; external sources add to the benefit.
Modelling pairwise label dependencies (BRPW-MARLENE) raises accuracy further, but at a cost that grows with the square of the number of labels, so it is practical mainly for small label sets.
The proposed Macro/Micro/Label-set G-Mean metrics evaluate both classes fairly, so they can replace Hamming-style or recall/precision-based scores when imbalance is present.
Because the methods need no user-tuned hyperparameters beyond the base learner and drift detector, they can be deployed online without a tuning phase.

Reading between the lines

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

A clean ablation that suppresses all sub-classifiers from other labels and sources, while keeping the weighting and resampling rules, would settle whether the gain is truly caused by transfer; the paper's weight-ratio analysis alone does not show that removing the transferred classifiers hurts.
The same label-specific, class-balanced weighting scheme could be applied to single-label multi-source streams with class imbalance, since nothing in the mechanism depends on the multi-label structure.
If pairwise dependencies pay off, a testable next step is to learn a dependency graph online and instantiate pairwise classifiers only for the strongest edges, reducing the quadratic cost while keeping most of the benefit.
The metric adaptation may influence the field beyond these algorithms: if class-balanced G-Mean becomes a standard way to evaluate imbalanced multi-label streams, future comparisons will be more sensitive to minority-label performance.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

I read this as a genuine first: nobody else has put transfer learning into multi-label data streams, and the authors have done a serious job of positioning it. The paper is well written, the experimental campaign is extensive (seven real datasets, synthetic streams, eleven baselines, statistical tests), and the proposed G-Mean adaptations for multi-label imbalance are sensible and useful. They also ship code. So the base contribution is real and worth engaging with.

The soft spot is exactly what the reader flagged: the paper never actually isolates inter-label transfer. The weighting scheme, the Poisson resampling, and the ensemble diversity are all confounded with the "transfer" mechanism. On the real data there are no external sources, so any transfer is between labels, yet there is no ablation that restricts the ensemble for label q to classifiers trained on q alone. On the synthetic data, the "BR w/o S" condition still trains and uses classifiers for all five labels, so it is not a no-transfer control either. The ASWR analysis in Section VII-C shows only that the weighting rule assigns mass to other-label classifiers, not that those classifiers improve prediction. High weight could just mean correlated outputs. That is the load-bearing gap, and it is fixable: one ablation that removes other-label classifiers while keeping resampling and weighting would settle it.

Minor issues are proportionate. BRPW-MARLENE is evaluated on only one real dataset (Yeast), so the claimed benefit of pairwise dependency transfer is thin on real data. The absence of error bars on the reported G-Mean means makes some of the differences hard to judge, though the Friedman ranks and Nemenyi tests carry some weight. None of these are fatal; they are normal revision items.

The metrics contribution and the clear problem framing are likely to be useful to people working on multi-label streams, and the code makes the methods easily adoptable. I would not cite it until the ablation exists, but I would send it to a serious referee. The right outcome is a major revision that adds the ablation and tightens the claims, not a desk rejection.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes two online multi-label stream classifiers, BR-MARLENE and BRPW-MARLENE. BR-MARLENE maintains an ensemble of binary per-label sub-classifiers trained on the target stream and on other label/stream sources, and combines them with per-label reliability weights that are designed to be robust to class imbalance. BRPW-MARLENE extends this by training pairwise label-dependency classifiers and mixing their outputs with the BR ensemble. The methods are evaluated on seven real-world datasets and on synthetic streams with varied drift types and source similarity, against eleven state-of-the-art multi-label stream baselines, using macro/micro/label-set G-Mean and Friedman/Nemenyi tests. The paper claims that the performance gains demonstrate the effectiveness of inter-label and source-to-target transfer learning.

Significance. If the transfer attribution were established, the paper would make a useful contribution to an underexplored area: multi-label transfer learning for non-stationary streams. The study is extensive in terms of benchmark coverage, uses statistical significance tests, proposes class-imbalance-aware evaluation metrics, and provides publicly available code. The main weakness is causal: the experiments do not isolate the transfer mechanism from the other novel components (the weighting scheme, Poisson resampling, and the larger ensemble size). As written, the central claim that inter-label knowledge transfer is what drives the improvements is not directly supported.

major comments (3)

[Section VII-C, Eqs. (22)-(24)] The 'Effect Analysis' does not test the transfer claim. ASWR measures the fraction of ensemble weight assigned to sub-classifiers from other labels/sources, but since the ensemble always contains these classifiers, a high ASWR only reflects the weighting rule; it does not show that removing those classifiers would hurt performance. The paper itself states in Section VII-C that 'it remains to be verified whether this improvement is truly due to our designed transfer mechanisms.' A no-transfer control is needed: for each target label q, re-run BR-MARLENE with the ensemble restricted to sub-classifiers trained only on q (and only on the target stream), keeping Poisson resampling and the weighting scheme. In addition, baselines use 10 sub-classifiers while BR-MARLENE uses |L| (plus drift-generated classifiers), so ensemble capacity is a confound; the control should also match ensemble size.
[Section IV-B2, Eq. (14)] The decomposition is not dimensionally correct. PW-classifiers are trained as binary classifiers predicting y_{q'} from (x, y_q), so their output is a conditional probability P(y_{q'}|x,y_q), not the joint probability P(y_q,y_{q'}|x). The identity P(y_{q'})P(y_q|y_{q'}) = P_{q',q}(H_PW(x_T, \hat y_{T,q'})) therefore omits the factor P(y_{q'}|x) or uses an inconsistent definition of P_{q',q}. Please clarify the definition of P_{q',q} and correct Eq. (14); otherwise the final voting rule for BRPW-MARLENE is ambiguous.
[Section VI-A1 / VII-A] BRPW-MARLENE is evaluated on only one real-world dataset (Yeast), with all other real-world results limited to BR-MARLENE. The claim that pairwise dependency modelling helps on real data therefore rests on a single dataset. This is acknowledged as a cost issue, but the paper should either temper the general claim or add a real dataset with a reduced label set.

minor comments (4)

[Table II / Fig. 1] Please report standard deviations or confidence intervals for the 30-run averages. With 30 runs, means alone obscure stochastic variability, particularly for close comparisons such as Slashdot Micro-G-Mean (BR-M 0.572 vs GOBR 0.598).
[Section V] In the source-stream time-complexity expression for BRPW-MARLENE, the training term uses f_pred_h; this should presumably be f_train_h.
[Section IV-A2] The calibrated probabilities P^+ and P^- in Eqs. (5)-(6) depend on the base classifier's probability estimates P^+ and P^-; please specify how these are obtained from the Hoeffding Tree (e.g., leaf probability estimates).
[Section IV-A] The statement that the approach is 'designed without hyper-parameters' is stronger than what the evaluation supports: the sliding-window size and DDM-OCI detector parameters are fixed rather than learned, but they are not truly absent. Consider softening the wording.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the method's gains are established by external prequential comparisons, and the closest issue (ASWR) is an evidentiary limitation, not a circular derivation.

full rationale

I walked the derivation chain from the proposed algorithms (BR-MARLENE and BRPW-MARLENE) through the experimental evaluation. No equation reduces by construction to its inputs: the per-label sub-classifier weights are learned online from observed labels and then applied to future instances; this is standard incremental learning, not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The reported G-Mean values are obtained by prequential evaluation on held-out stream examples and compared against eleven external baselines, so the central empirical claim is not internally forced. The paper's own Section VII-C explicitly acknowledges the main threat to the transfer interpretation: "it remains to be verified whether this improvement is truly due to our designed transfer mechanisms." The follow-up ASWR analysis defines the “source” set for a target label as all sub-classifiers trained on other labels, so on Yeast (14 labels) the numerator contains 13 of 14 sub-classifiers; a high ASWR is therefore partly a cardinality effect and does not by itself prove that removing those classifiers would hurt. This is a genuine limitation and a missing ablation, but it is not circularity: the ASWR statistic is not used to generate the reported performance numbers, and the main comparison against external methods stands independently. Self-citations (Melanie, MARLINE, DDM-OCI, and resampling-based ensembles) appear as background or component choices, not as load-bearing justifications for the transfer claim, and no uniqueness theorem is invoked to rule out alternatives. The paper's novelty claim is empirical rather than derivational, and its evaluation is self-contained against public and synthetic data. Therefore, the appropriate finding is no significant circularity (score 0).

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on several untested assumptions: the weighting scheme's ability to capture transfer value, the reliability of DDM-OCI per label, and the representativeness of the evaluation protocol. The paper provides no ablation without transfer to confirm causality, and BRPW-MARLENE is evaluated on a single real dataset.

free parameters (2)

Evaluation sliding window size = 10% of |D|
Chosen by hand for prequential evaluation; results may vary with this choice and no sensitivity analysis is provided.
DDM-OCI drift detector parameters
The paper does not specify the DDM-OCI parameters; it relies on defaults from the MOA implementation, which may affect drift detection and ensemble size.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Concept for each label is defined by conditional distribution P(y_q|x), and drift is a change in this distribution.
Used throughout Section II to define the learning problem and the transfer setting.
domain assumption Transferring knowledge across labels is beneficial when label concepts are related.
The core premise of BR-MARLENE and BRPW-MARLENE; the paper assumes that other labels' sub-classifiers provide useful signal for a target label.
ad hoc to paper The dynamic correction factors kappa+ and kappa- ensure balanced contribution of positive and negative examples without prior knowledge of class imbalance.
This assumption underlies the weighting scheme in Section IV-A2; if these factors do not accurately track evolving class distributions, the reliability estimates could be biased.
ad hoc to paper DDM-OCI can reliably detect per-label concept drift in multi-label streams with class imbalance.
The method depends on drift detection to add new sub-classifiers and reset weights; no sensitivity analysis is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Multi-Label Transfer Learning in Non-Stationary Data Streams." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HMNMX6EH

@misc{pith2026250908181,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Multi-Label Transfer Learning in Non-Stationary Data Streams},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HMNMX6EH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.08181}
}

read the original abstract

Label concepts in multi-label data streams often experience drift in non-stationary environments, either independently or in relation to other labels. Transferring knowledge between related labels can accelerate adaptation, yet research on multi-label transfer learning for data streams remains limited. To address this, we propose two novel transfer learning methods: BR-MARLENE leverages knowledge from different labels in both source and target streams for multi-label classification; BRPW-MARLENE builds on this by explicitly modelling and transferring pairwise label dependencies to enhance learning performance. Comprehensive experiments show that both methods outperform state-of-the-art multi-label stream approaches in non-stationary environments, demonstrating the effectiveness of inter-label knowledge transfer for improved predictive performance.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.08181 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Average G-Mean of label lT ,1 and lT ,2 on Synthetic Datasets. is calculated as: SW Rq,q′ = P h∈HPWsrc α q,q′ h P h∈HPW α q,q′ h (23) ASW R = P|LT | q=1 P|LT | q ′=1,q′̸=q SW Rq,q′ |LT ||LT | − 1 (24) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_1.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Average Source sub-classifiers’ Weight Ratio. (a) and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages

[1]

Learning from Data Streams: An Overview and Update

J. Read and I. ˇZliobait˙e, “Learning from data streams: An overview and update,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.14720, 2022

work page Pith review arXiv 2022
[2]

Dealing with concept drift and class imbalance in multi-label stream classification,

E. Spyromitros-Xioufis, M. Spiliopoulou, G. Tsoumakas, and I. Vla- havas, “Dealing with concept drift and class imbalance in multi-label stream classification,”Department of Computer Science, Aristotle Uni- versity of Thessaloniki, 2011

work page 2011
[3]

A novel online stacked ensemble for multi-label stream classification,

A. B ¨uy¨ukc ¸akir, H. Bonab, and F. Can, “A novel online stacked ensemble for multi-label stream classification,” inProceedings of the 27th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, 2018, pp. 1063–1072

work page 2018
[4]

A comprehensive survey on transfer learning,

F. Zhuang, Z. Qi, K. Duan, D. Xi, Y . Zhu, H. Zhu, H. Xiong, and Q. He, “A comprehensive survey on transfer learning,”Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 109, no. 1, pp. 43–76, 2020

2020
[5]

Addressing the curse of imbalanced training sets: one-sided selection,

M. Kubat, S. Matwinet al., “Addressing the curse of imbalanced training sets: one-sided selection,” in14th International Conference on Machine Learning, vol. 97. Citeseer, 1997, pp. 79–86

work page 1997
[6]

Ddd: A new ensemble approach for dealing with concept drift,

L. L. Minku and X. Yao, “Ddd: A new ensemble approach for dealing with concept drift,”IEEE transactions on knowledge and data engineer- ing, vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 619–633, 2011

work page 2011
[7]

Online transfer learning,

P. Zhao, S. C. Hoi, J. Wang, and B. Li, “Online transfer learning,” Artificial Intelligence, vol. 216, pp. 76–102, 2014

work page 2014
[8]

Multi-source transfer learning for non-stationary environments,

H. Du, L. L. Minku, and H. Zhou, “Multi-source transfer learning for non-stationary environments,” in2019 International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN). IEEE, 2019, pp. 1–8

2019

Show all 39 references

[9]

Online boosting adaptive learning under concept drift for multistream classification,

E. Yu, J. Lu, B. Zhang, and G. Zhang, “Online boosting adaptive learning under concept drift for multistream classification,” inAAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, vol. 38, no. 15, 2024, pp. 16 522–16 530

2024
[10]

Marline: Multi-source mapping transfer learning for non-stationary environments,

H. Du, L. L. Minku, and H. Zhou, “Marline: Multi-source mapping transfer learning for non-stationary environments,” inIEEE International Conference on Data Mining. IEEE, 2020, pp. 122–131

2020
[11]

Concept drift adaptation by ex- ploiting historical knowledge,

Y . Sun, K. Tang, Z. Zhu, and X. Yao, “Concept drift adaptation by ex- ploiting historical knowledge,”IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems, vol. 29, no. 10, pp. 4822–4832, 2018

2018
[12]

Concept drift- tolerant transfer learning in dynamic environments,

C. Yang, Y .-m. Cheung, J. Ding, and K. C. Tan, “Concept drift- tolerant transfer learning in dynamic environments,”IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems, vol. 33, no. 8, pp. 3857– 3871, 2021

2021
[13]

Otl-ce: Online transfer learning for data streams with class evolution,

B. Jiao and S. Liu, “Otl-ce: Online transfer learning for data streams with class evolution,”Neurocomputing, p. 129470, 2025

2025
[14]

Automatic online multi-source domain adaptation,

X. Renchunzi and M. Pratama, “Automatic online multi-source domain adaptation,”Information Sciences, vol. 582, pp. 480–494, 2022

2022
[15]

Discriminative methods for multi-labeled classification,

S. Godbole and S. Sarawagi, “Discriminative methods for multi-labeled classification,” inPacific-Asia Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. Springer, 2004, pp. 22–30

2004
[16]

Classifier chains for multi-label classification,

J. Read, B. Pfahringer, G. Holmes, and E. Frank, “Classifier chains for multi-label classification,” inJoint European Conference on Machine Learning and Knowledge Discovery in Databases. Springer, 2009, pp. 254–269

2009
[17]

Multilabel classification via calibrated label ranking,

J. F ¨urnkranz, E. H ¨ullermeier, E. L. Menc´ıa, and K. Brinker, “Multilabel classification via calibrated label ranking,”Machine Learning, vol. 73, no. 2, pp. 133–153, 2008

2008
[18]

Multi-label classification using ensembles of pruned sets,

J. Read, B. Pfahringer, and G. Holmes, “Multi-label classification using ensembles of pruned sets,” in2008 eighth IEEE International Conference on Data Mining. IEEE, 2008, pp. 995–1000

2008
[19]

Multi-label classification via multi-target regression on data streams,

A. Osojnik, P. Panov, and S. D ˇzeroski, “Multi-label classification via multi-target regression on data streams,”Machine Learning, vol. 106, no. 6, pp. 745–770, 2017

2017
[20]

A weighted ensemble classification algorithm based on nearest neighbors for multi-label data stream,

H. Wu, M. Han, Z. Chen, M. Li, and X. Zhang, “A weighted ensemble classification algorithm based on nearest neighbors for multi-label data stream,”ACM Transactions on Knowledge Discovery from Data, vol. 17, no. 5, pp. 1–21, 2023

2023
[21]

Weak multi-label data stream classification under distribution changes in labels,

Y . Zou, X. Hu, P. Li, and J. Hu, “Weak multi-label data stream classification under distribution changes in labels,”IEEE Transactions on Big Data, 2024

2024
[22]

High-dimensional multi-label data stream classification with concept drifting detection,

P. Li, H. Zhang, X. Hu, and X. Wu, “High-dimensional multi-label data stream classification with concept drifting detection,”IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, vol. 35, no. 8, pp. 8085–8099, 2022

2022
[23]

Hoeffding adaptive trees for multi-label classification on data streams,

A. Esteban, A. Cano, A. Zafra, and S. Ventura, “Hoeffding adaptive trees for multi-label classification on data streams,”Knowledge-Based Systems, vol. 304, p. 112561, 2024

2024
[24]

Leveraging bagging for evolving data streams,

A. Bifet, G. Holmes, and B. Pfahringer, “Leveraging bagging for evolving data streams,” inJoint European Conference on Machine Learning and Knowledge Discovery in Databases, 2010, pp. 135–150

2010
[25]

Scalable and efficient multi-label classification for evolving data streams,

J. Read, A. Bifet, G. Holmes, and B. Pfahringer, “Scalable and efficient multi-label classification for evolving data streams,”Machine Learning, vol. 88, no. 1-2, pp. 243–272, 2012

2012
[26]

Mining high-speed data streams,

P. Domingos and G. Hulten, “Mining high-speed data streams,” in Proceedings of the sixth ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, 2000, pp. 71–80

2000
[27]

Concept drift detection for online class imbalance learning,

S. Wang, L. L. Minku, D. Ghezzi, D. Caltabiano, P. Tino, and X. Yao, “Concept drift detection for online class imbalance learning,” inThe 2013 International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN). IEEE, 2013, pp. 1–10

2013
[28]

Online multi-label streaming feature selection with label correlation,

D. You, Y . Wang, J. Xiao, Y . Lin, M. Pan, Z. Chen, L. Shen, and X. Wu, “Online multi-label streaming feature selection with label correlation,” IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 2021

2021
[29]

Multi-label classification from high-speed data streams with adaptive model rules and random rules,

R. Sousa and J. Gama, “Multi-label classification from high-speed data streams with adaptive model rules and random rules,”Progress in Artificial Intelligence, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 177–187, 2018

2018
[30]

Multi- label learning on low label density sets with few examples,

M. Vergara, B. Bustos, I. Sipiran, T. Schreck, and S. Lengauer, “Multi- label learning on low label density sets with few examples,”Expert Systems with Applications, vol. 265, p. 125942, 2025

2025
[31]

A survey on multi-label data stream classification,

X. Zheng, P. Li, Z. Chu, and X. Hu, “A survey on multi-label data stream classification,”IEEE Access, vol. 8, pp. 1249–1275, 2019

2019
[32]

Moa: Massive online analysis,

A. Bifet, G. Holmes, R. Kirkby, and B. Pfahringer, “Moa: Massive online analysis,”The Journal of Machine Learning Research, vol. 11, no. May, pp. 1601–1604, 2010

2010
[33]

Meka: a multi-label/multi-target extension to weka,

J. Read, P. Reutemann, B. Pfahringer, and G. Holmes, “Meka: a multi-label/multi-target extension to weka,” inThe Journal of Machine Learning Research, 2016

2016
[34]

New ensemble methods for evolving data streams,

A. Bifet, G. Holmes, B. Pfahringer, R. Kirkby, and R. Gavalda, “New ensemble methods for evolving data streams,” inProceedings of the 15th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data mining, 2009, pp. 139–148

2009
[35]

A survey on concept drift adaptation,

J. Gama, I. ˇZliobait˙e, A. Bifet, M. Pechenizkiy, and A. Bouchachia, “A survey on concept drift adaptation,”ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), vol. 46, no. 4, p. 44, 2014

2014
[36]

Multi-label classification: do hamming loss and subset accuracy really conflict with each other?

G. Wu and J. Zhu, “Multi-label classification: do hamming loss and subset accuracy really conflict with each other?”Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 33, pp. 3130–3140, 2020

2020
[37]

Mlcm: Multi-label confu- sion matrix,

M. Heydarian, T. E. Doyle, and R. Samavi, “Mlcm: Multi-label confu- sion matrix,”Ieee Access, vol. 10, pp. 19 083–19 095, 2022

2022
[38]

Addressing imbalance in multilabel classification: Measures and random resampling algorithms,

F. Charte, A. J. Rivera, M. J. del Jesus, and F. Herrera, “Addressing imbalance in multilabel classification: Measures and random resampling algorithms,”Neurocomputing, vol. 163, pp. 3–16, 2015

2015
[39]

Resampling-based ensemble methods for online class imbalance learning,

S. Wang, L. L. Minku, and X. Yao, “Resampling-based ensemble methods for online class imbalance learning,”IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, vol. 27, no. 5, pp. 1356–1368, 2014

2014

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Learning from Data Streams: An Overview and Update

J. Read and I. ˇZliobait˙e, “Learning from data streams: An overview and update,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.14720, 2022

work page Pith review arXiv 2022

[2] [2]

Dealing with concept drift and class imbalance in multi-label stream classification,

E. Spyromitros-Xioufis, M. Spiliopoulou, G. Tsoumakas, and I. Vla- havas, “Dealing with concept drift and class imbalance in multi-label stream classification,”Department of Computer Science, Aristotle Uni- versity of Thessaloniki, 2011

work page 2011

[3] [3]

A novel online stacked ensemble for multi-label stream classification,

A. B ¨uy¨ukc ¸akir, H. Bonab, and F. Can, “A novel online stacked ensemble for multi-label stream classification,” inProceedings of the 27th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, 2018, pp. 1063–1072

work page 2018

[4] [4]

A comprehensive survey on transfer learning,

F. Zhuang, Z. Qi, K. Duan, D. Xi, Y . Zhu, H. Zhu, H. Xiong, and Q. He, “A comprehensive survey on transfer learning,”Proceedings of the IEEE, vol. 109, no. 1, pp. 43–76, 2020

2020

[5] [5]

Addressing the curse of imbalanced training sets: one-sided selection,

M. Kubat, S. Matwinet al., “Addressing the curse of imbalanced training sets: one-sided selection,” in14th International Conference on Machine Learning, vol. 97. Citeseer, 1997, pp. 79–86

work page 1997

[6] [6]

Ddd: A new ensemble approach for dealing with concept drift,

L. L. Minku and X. Yao, “Ddd: A new ensemble approach for dealing with concept drift,”IEEE transactions on knowledge and data engineer- ing, vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 619–633, 2011

work page 2011

[7] [7]

Online transfer learning,

P. Zhao, S. C. Hoi, J. Wang, and B. Li, “Online transfer learning,” Artificial Intelligence, vol. 216, pp. 76–102, 2014

work page 2014

[8] [8]

Multi-source transfer learning for non-stationary environments,

H. Du, L. L. Minku, and H. Zhou, “Multi-source transfer learning for non-stationary environments,” in2019 International Joint Conference on Neural Networks (IJCNN). IEEE, 2019, pp. 1–8

2019