Efficient Two Stage Voting Architecture for Pairwise Multi-label Classification

  • Gjorgji Madjarov
  • Dejan Gjorgjevikj
  • Tomche Delev
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6464)


A common approach for solving multi-label classification problems using problem-transformation methods and dichotomizing classifiers is the pair-wise decomposition strategy. One of the problems with this approach is the need for querying a quadratic number of binary classifiers for making a prediction that can be quite time consuming especially in classification problems with large number of labels. To tackle this problem we propose a two stage voting architecture (TSVA) for efficient pair-wise multiclass voting to the multi-label setting, which is closely related to the calibrated label ranking method. Four different real-world datasets (enron, yeast, scene and emotions) were used to evaluate the performance of the TSVA. The performance of this architecture was compared with the calibrated label ranking method with majority voting strategy and the quick weighted voting algorithm (QWeighted) for pair-wise multi-label classification. The results from the experiments suggest that the TSVA significantly outperforms the concurrent algorithms in term of testing speed while keeping comparable or offering better prediction performance.


Multi-label classification calibration ranking 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Furnkranz, J.: Round robin classification. Journal of Machine Learning Research 2(5), 721–747 (2002)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wu, T.F., Lin, C.J., Weng, R.C.: Probability estimates for multiclass classification by pairwise coupling. Journal of Machine Learning Research 5(8), 975–1005 (2004)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brinker, K., Furnkranz, J., Hullermeier, E.: A unified model for multilabel classification and ranking. In: 17th European Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Riva Del Garda, Italy, pp. 489–493 (2006)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Park, S.H., Furnkranz, J.: Efficient pairwise classification. In: 18th European Conference on Machine Learning, Warsaw, Poland, pp. 658–665 (2007)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Loza Mencia, E., Park, S.H., Furnkranz, J.: Efficient voting prediction for pairwise multi-label classification. Neurocomputing 73, 1164–1176 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Furnkranz, J., Hullermeier, E., Loza Mencia, E., Brinker, K.: Multi-label classification via calibrated label ranking. Machine Learning 73(2), 133–153 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Schapire, R.E., Singer, Y.: Boostexter: a boosting-based system for text categorization. Machine Learning 39(2), 135–168 (2000)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
  9. 9.
  10. 10.
  11. 11.
    Boutell, M.R., Luo, J., Xipeng, S., Brown, C.: Learning multi-labelscene classiffication. Pattern Recognition 37(9), 1757–1771 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Elisseeff, A., Weston, J.: A kernel method for multi-labelled classification. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 14 (2001)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
  14. 14.
    Trohidis, K., Tsoumakas, G., Vlahavas, I.: Multilabel classification of music into emotions. In: International Conference on Music Information Retrieval, Philadelphia, PA, USA, pp. 320–330 (2008)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gjorgji Madjarov
    • 1
  • Dejan Gjorgjevikj
    • 1
  • Tomche Delev
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Information TechnologiesSs. Cyril and Methodius UniversitySkopjeRepublic of Macedonia

Personalised recommendations