MLCM: Multi-Label Confusion Matrix
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Concise and unambiguous assessment of a machine learning algorithm is key to classifier design and performance improvement. In the multi-class classification task, where each instance can only be labeled as one class, the confusion matrix is a powerful tool for performance assessment by quantifying the classification overlap. However, in the multi-label classification task, where each instance can be labeled with more than one class, the confusion matrix is undefined. Performance assessment of the multi-label classifier is currently based on calculating performance averages, such as hamming loss, precision, recall, and F-score. While the current assessment techniques present a reasonable representation of each class and overall performance, their aggregate nature results in ambiguity when identifying false negative ( FN ) and false positive ( FP ) results. To address this gap, we define a method of creating the multi-label confusion matrix (MLCM) based on three proposed categories of multi-label problems. After establishing the shortcomings of current methods for identifying FN and FP , we demonstrate the usage of the MLCM with the classification of two publicly available multi-label data sets: i) a 12-lead ECG data set with nine classes, and ii) a movie poster data set with eighteen classes. A comparison of the MLCM results against statistics from the current techniques is presented to show the effectiveness in providing a concise and unambiguous understanding of a multi-label classifier behavior.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.006 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".