Does Tail Label Help for Large-Scale Multi-Label Learning
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Large-scale multi-label learning annotates relevant labels for unseen data from a huge number of candidate labels. It is well known that in large-scale multi-label learning, labels exhibit a long tail distribution in which a significant fraction of labels are tail labels. Nonetheless, how tail labels make impact on the performance metrics in large-scale multi-label learning was not explicitly quantified. In this paper, we disclose that whatever labels are randomly missing or misclassified, tail labels impact much less than common labels in terms of commonly used performance metrics (Top-$k$ precision and nDCG@$k$). With the observation above, we develop a low-complexity large-scale multi-label learning algorithm with the goal of facilitating fast prediction and compact models by trimming tail labels adaptively. Experiments clearly verify that both the prediction time and the model size are significantly reduced without sacrificing much predictive performance for state-of-the-art approaches.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it