2021
DOI: 10.1016/j.ipm.2020.102481
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

On the cost-effectiveness of neural and non-neural approaches and representations for text classification: A comprehensive comparative study

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
56
0
7

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
2
1

Relationship

3
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 59 publications
(64 citation statements)
references
References 32 publications
1
56
0
7
Order By: Relevance
“…This is an area that is ripe for development. In Textbox 3, we summarize our recommendations for systematic reviews on the application of big data and ML for people's health based on our experience, the findings of this systematic review, and inspired by Cunha et al [53].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This is an area that is ripe for development. In Textbox 3, we summarize our recommendations for systematic reviews on the application of big data and ML for people's health based on our experience, the findings of this systematic review, and inspired by Cunha et al [53].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In other words, the classifier used to predict the class of documents was not used in the construction phase of the document representation. In terms of text representations, we considered three alternatives, namely traditional term-weighting alternatives (term frequency-inverted document frequency [TFIDF]); weighting based on word and character (n-gram) frequency; and recent representations based on meta-features, which capture statistical information from a document's neighborhood and have obtained state-of-the-art effectiveness in recent benchmarks [35][36][37][38][39].…”
Section: Automatic Text Classification Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In terms of classification (base) algorithms, we consider the LinearSVM (Fan et al, 2008b), kNN (Altman, 1992, LogisticRegression (Fan et al, 2008b), XGBoost (Chen and Guestrin, 2016b), XLNet (Yang et al, 2019) and BERT (Devlin et al, 2018). In terms of representations, beyond the traditional term-weighting alternatives (TFIDF), we consider distributional and other types of word embeddings, such as FastText (Joulin et al, 2016; and PTE (Tang et al, 2015b), as well as recent representations based on MetaFeatures that have obtained state-of-the-art (SOTA) effectiveness in some of the experimented datasets (Canuto et al, 2019a(Canuto et al, , 2016Cunha et al, 2020Cunha et al, , 2021. Table 2 We run the stacking process with the following variants: all combinations of the same base algorithm with different representations, all combinations of different base algorithms with their best representations, and a combination that includes all the base algorithms.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Algorithms based on neural networks (e.g., BERT (Devlin et al, 2018), XLNet (Yang et al, 2019)) have become the highlight in the area, where they are used both to learn features for text representation and as classification algorithms. The main problem of such methods is the very high computational costs needed for learning the model parameters (Sun et al, 2019;Cunha et al, 2021).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation