REVIEW 2 cited by
Balancing Methods for Multi-label Text Classification with Long-Tailed Class Distribution
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
Multi-label text classification is a challenging task because it requires capturing label dependencies. It becomes even more challenging when class distribution is long-tailed. Resampling and re-weighting are common approaches used for addressing the class imbalance problem, however, they are not effective when there is label dependency besides class imbalance because they result in oversampling of common labels. Here, we introduce the application of balancing loss functions for multi-label text classification. We perform experiments on a general domain dataset with 90 labels (Reuters-21578) and a domain-specific dataset from PubMed with 18211 labels. We find that a distribution-balanced loss function, which inherently addresses both the class imbalance and label linkage problems, outperforms commonly used loss functions. Distribution balancing methods have been successfully used in the image recognition field. Here, we show their effectiveness in natural language processing. Source code is available at https://github.com/Roche/BalancedLossNLP.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
Label-semantics Aware Generative Approach for Domain-Agnostic Multilabel Classification
LAGAMC turns multi-label classification into generating label descriptions and matching them back, with large F1 gains on five datasets.
-
Towards the Development of Balanced Synthetic Data for Correcting Grammatical Errors in Arabic: An Approach Based on Error Tagging Model and Synthetic Data Generating Model
A tag-conditioned Arabic synthetic data pipeline is claimed to set a new GEC state of the art, but the reported 79.36% F1 is the F0.5 score from the paper's own table.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.