MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4398162687 · doi:10.1109/access.2024.3403569

Multi-Label Lifelong Machine Learning: A Scoping Review of Algorithms, Techniques, and Applications

2024· review· en· W4398162687 on OpenAlexafffund
Mohammed Awal Kassim, Herna L. Viktor, Wojtek Michalowski

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Access · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicText and Document Classification Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsLifelong learningComputer scienceMachine learningArtificial intelligenceForgettingProcess (computing)AdaptabilityAdaptation (eye)Stability (learning theory)Multi-label classificationIntersection (aeronautics)Engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Lifelong machine learning concerns the development of systems that continuously learn from diverse tasks, incorporating new knowledge without forgetting the knowledge they have previously acquired. Multi-label classification is a supervised learning process in which each instance is assigned multiple non-exclusive labels, with each label denoted as a binary value. One of the main challenges within the lifelong learning paradigm is the stability-plasticity dilemma, which entails balancing a model’s adaptability in terms of incorporating new knowledge with its stability in terms of retaining previously acquired knowledge. When faced with multi-label data, the lifelong learning challenge becomes even more pronounced, as it becomes essential to preserve relations between multiple labels across sequential tasks. This scoping review explores the intersection of lifelong learning and multi-label classification, an emerging domain that integrates continual adaptation with intricate multi-label datasets. By analyzing the existing literature, we establish connections, identify gaps in the existing research, and propose new directions for research to improve the efficacy of multi-label lifelong learning algorithms. Our review unearths a growing number of algorithms and underscores the need for specialized evaluation metrics and methodologies for the accurate assessment of their performance. We also highlight the need for strategies that incorporate real-world data from varying contexts into the learning process to fully capture the nuances of real-world environments.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0080.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.138
GPT teacher head0.446
Teacher spread0.308 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE AccessSame topicText and Document Classification TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207