We consider the problem of recommending relevant labels (items) for a given data point (user). In particular, we are interested in the practically important setting where the evaluation is with respect to non-decomposable (over labels) performance metrics like the $F_1$ measure, \emph{and} training data has missing labels. To this end, we propose a generic framework that given a performance metric $\Psi$, can devise a regularized objective function and a threshold such that all the values in the predicted score vector above and only above the threshold are selected to be positive. We show that the regret or generalization error in the given metric $\Psi$ is bounded ultimately by estimation error of certain underlying parameters. In particular, we derive regret bounds under three popular settings: a) collaborative filtering, b) multilabel classification, and c) PU (positive-unlabeled) learning. For each of the above problems, we can obtain precise non-asymptotic regret bound which is small even when a large fraction of labels is missing. Our empirical results on synthetic and benchmark datasets demonstrate that by explicitly modeling for missing labels and optimizing the desired performance metric, our algorithm indeed achieves significantly better performance (like $F_1$ score) when compared to methods that do not model missing label information carefully.

Neural Information Processing Systems http://nips.cc/

However I understand that space is limited in the paper and in rebuttal, so I'm willing to give the authors the benefit of doubt. Using the same notation for an empirical quantity and its expectation, in a proof about sample complexity, is really too confusing and needs to be fixed before the proof can be verified. Regarding the assumptions, unless I'm missing something, gamma geq b_0 min(b_11, b_01,b_10,b_00) gives zero to some interesting measures. The theoretical discussion is a bit vague about some assumptions and the effect of some parameters of the problem. The experiments compare a variety of data sets but only one competing algorithm.

Open-vocabulary Extreme Multi-label Classification (OXMC) extends traditional XMC by allowing prediction beyond an extremely large, predefined label set (typically $10^3$ to $10^{12}$ labels), addressing the dynamic nature of real-world labeling tasks. However, self-selection bias in data annotation leads to significant missing labels in both training and test data, particularly for less popular inputs. This creates two critical challenges: generation models learn to be "lazy'" by under-generating labels, and evaluation becomes unreliable due to insufficient annotation in the test set. In this work, we introduce Positive-Unlabeled Sequence Learning (PUSL), which reframes OXMC as an infinite keyphrase generation task, addressing the generation model's laziness. Additionally, we propose to adopt a suite of evaluation metrics, F1@$\mathcal{O}$ and newly proposed B@$k$, to reliably assess OXMC models with incomplete ground truths. In a highly imbalanced e-commerce dataset with substantial missing labels, PUSL generates 30% more unique labels, and 72% of its predictions align with actual user queries. On the less skewed EURLex-4.3k dataset, PUSL demonstrates superior F1 scores, especially as label counts increase from 15 to 30. Our approach effectively tackles both the modeling and evaluation challenges in OXMC with missing labels.

The propensity model introduced by Jain et al. 2016 has become a standard approach for dealing with missing and long-tail labels in extreme multi-label classification (XMLC). In this paper, we critically revise this approach showing that despite its theoretical soundness, its application in contemporary XMLC works is debatable. We exhaustively discuss the flaws of the propensity-based approach, and present several recipes, some of them related to solutions used in search engines and recommender systems, that we believe constitute promising alternatives to be followed in XMLC.

The goal in extreme multi-label classification (XMC) is to tag an instance with a small subset of relevant labels from an extremely large set of possible labels. In addition to the computational burden arising from large number of training instances, features and labels, problems in XMC are faced with two statistical challenges, (i) large number of 'tail-labels' -- those which occur very infrequently, and (ii) missing labels as it is virtually impossible to manually assign every relevant label to an instance. In this work, we derive an unbiased estimator for general formulation of loss functions which decompose over labels, and then infer the forms for commonly used loss functions such as hinge- and squared-hinge-loss and binary cross-entropy loss. We show that the derived unbiased estimators, in the form of appropriate weighting factors, can be easily incorporated in state-of-the-art algorithms for extreme classification, thereby scaling to datasets with hundreds of thousand labels. However, empirically, we find a slightly altered version that gives more relative weight to tail labels to perform even better. We suspect is due to the label imbalance in the dataset, which is not explicitly addressed by our theoretically derived estimator. Minimizing the proposed loss functions leads to significant improvement over existing methods (up to 20% in some cases) on benchmark datasets in XMC.

We consider the problem of recommending relevant labels (items) for a given data point (user). In particular, we are interested in the practically important setting where the evaluation is with respect to non-decomposable (over labels) performance metrics like the $F_1$ measure, \emph{and} training data has missing labels. To this end, we propose a generic framework that given a performance metric $\Psi$, can devise a regularized objective function and a threshold such that all the values in the predicted score vector above and only above the threshold are selected to be positive. We show that the regret or generalization error in the given metric $\Psi$ is bounded ultimately by estimation error of certain underlying parameters. In particular, we derive regret bounds under three popular settings: a) collaborative filtering, b) multilabel classification, and c) PU (positive-unlabeled) learning.