Rethinking and Reweighting the Univariate Losses for Multi-Label Ranking: Consistency and Generalization
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
(Partial) ranking loss is a commonly used evaluation measure for multi-label classification, which is usually optimized with convex surrogates for computational efficiency. Prior theoretical work on multi-label ranking mainly focuses on (Fisher) consistency analyses. However, there is a gap between existing theory and practice -- some pairwise losses can lead to promising performance but lack consistency, while some univariate losses are consistent but usually have no clear superiority in practice. In this paper, we attempt to fill this gap through a systematic study from two complementary perspectives of consistency and generalization error bounds of learning algorithms. Our results show that learning algorithms with the consistent univariate loss have an error bound of O(c) (c is the number of labels), while algorithms with the inconsistent pairwise loss depend on O(√c) as shown in prior work. This explains that the latter can achieve better performance than the former in practice. Moreover, we present an inconsistent reweighted univariate loss-based learning algorithm that enjoys an error bound of O(√c) for promising performance as well as the computational efficiency of univariate losses. Finally, experimental results validate our theoretical analyses.
Key facts. Cited by 9 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 7 of its 38 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 10 May 2021.
Builds on
7 of 38 references.
References · 7
- 2016A vector-contraction inequality for Rademacher complexitiescited by 142
- 2016A Unified View of Multi-Label Performance Measurescited by 36
- 2016Barzilai-Borwein Step Size for Stochastic Gradient Descentcited by 33
- 2020Convex Calibrated Surrogates for the Multi-Label F-Measurecited by 18
- 2013On the Bayes-optimality of F-measure maximizerscited by 16
- 2020Multi-label classification: do Hamming loss and subset accuracy really conflict with each other?cited by 14
- 2019Joint Ranking SVM and Binary Relevance with Robust Low-Rank Learning for Multi-Label Classificationcited by 10
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2023: 3; 2024: 2; 2025: 3; 2026: 1.
9 papers.
- 2023In Defense of Softmax Parametrization for Calibrated and Consistent Learning to Defercited by 26
- 2024Multi-Label Learning with Stronger Consistency Guaranteescited by 22
- 2023Towards Understanding Generalization of Macro-AUC in Multi-label Learningcited by 4
- 2025QAMRO: Quality-aware Adaptive Margin Ranking Optimization for Human-aligned Assessment of Audio Generation Systemscited by 3
- 2025Bipartite Ranking From Multiple Labels: On Loss Versus Label Aggregationcited by 2
- 2024Top-K Pairwise Ranking: Bridging the Gap Among Ranking-Based Measures for Multi-Label Classificationcited by 1
- 2023GaussianMLR: Learning Implicit Class Significance via Calibrated Multi-Label Rankingcited by 0
- 2025UniMLR: Modeling Implicit Class Significance for Multi-Label Rankingcited by 0
- 2026Principled Algorithms for Optimizing Generalized Metrics in Multi-Label Learningcited by 0
- 2026Principled Algorithms for Optimizing Generalized Metrics in Multi-Label Learning27 May 2026
- 2025UniMLR: Modeling Implicit Class Significance for Multi-Label Ranking29 Aug 2025
- 2025QAMRO: Quality-aware Adaptive Margin Ranking Optimization for Human-aligned Assessment of Audio Generation Systems12 Aug 2025
- 2025Bipartite Ranking From Multiple Labels: On Loss Versus Label Aggregation15 Apr 2025
- 2024Multi-Label Learning with Stronger Consistency Guarantees18 Jul 2024
- 2024Top-K Pairwise Ranking: Bridging the Gap Among Ranking-Based Measures for Multi-Label Classification9 Jul 2024
- 2023In Defense of Softmax Parametrization for Calibrated and Consistent Learning to Defer2 Nov 2023
- 2023Towards Understanding Generalization of Macro-AUC in Multi-label Learning9 May 2023
- 2023GaussianMLR: Learning Implicit Class Significance via Calibrated Multi-Label Ranking7 Mar 2023