An Extreme Multi-label Text Classification (XMTC) Library Dataset: What if we took "Use of Practical AI in Digital Libraries" seriously?
Authors: Jennifer D'Souza, Sameer Sadruddin, Maximilian Kähler, Andrea Salfinger, Luca Zaccagna, Francesca Incitti, Lauro Snidaro, Osma Suominen
Organizations: TIB Leibniz Information Centre for Science and Technology, Germany · Deutsche Nationalbibliothek, Germany · University of Udine, Italy · National Library of Finland, Finland
Subject indexing is vital for discovery but hard to sustain at scale and across languages. We release a large bilingual (English/German) corpus of catalog records annotated with the Integrated Authority File (GND), plus a machine-actionable GND taxonomy. The resource enables ontology-aware multi-label classification, mapping text to authority terms, and agent-assisted cataloging with reproducible, authority-grounded evaluation. We provide a brief statistical profile and qualitative error analyses of three systems. We invite the community to assess not only accuracy but usefulness and transparency, toward authority-anchored AI co-pilots that amplify catalogers' work.
Figures & tables
Type/Split
en
de
Total
Article
1,738 (1.27)
10 (0.01)
1,748 (1.28)
train
1,103 (0.81)
7 (0.01)
1,110 (0.81)
dev
212 (0.16)
2 (0.00)
214 (0.16)
test
423 (0.31)
1 (0.00)
424 (0.31)
Book
44,877 (32.86)
55,704 (40.79)
100,581 (73.65)
train
30,545 (22.37)
35,899 (26.29)
66,444 (48.65)
Table 1: Record counts and relative shares (%) by split, type, and language for the updated dataset. Blue: type-level shares; Cyan: split-level (Total column); Gray: totals. Cells ≥ 15% are shaded.
Record (title) (Linked)
Lang
Type
Domains
Subjects
Chapter 86: Explaining the Comparative Statics in Step-Level Public Good Games
Table 2: Representative examples of multi-domain, multi-subject annotations from the library records dataset. Only the title metadata are shown for compactness; links point to the full JSON-LD records.
Metric
Train–Dev
Train–Test
Dev–Test
Jaccard
0.3687
0.3608
0.3668
Tanimoto
0.2064
0.2530
0.3771
Table 3: Jaccard and Tanimoto scores showing subject overlap across dataset splits.
Model
View
N( ≥ 1)
N( ≥ 2)
Mean
Max
Gemma-300m
name
∼ 19.8K
∼ 4.0K
0.15
83
context
∼ 15.7K
∼ 3.6K
0.13
75
E5-small
name
∼ 195.7K
∼ 188.1K
38.77
1.49K
context
∼ 165.8K
∼ 147.0K
24.62
800
Jina-v2-DE
name
∼ 15.0K
∼ 2.8K
0.11
36
context
∼ 14.5K
∼ 3.7K
0.13
53
Table 4: Semantic-similarity graph at cosine ≥0.90 (topK =50 ), N=203,763 subjects. N( ≥ 1): count of subjects that have at least one similar neighbor; N( ≥ 2): subjects with at least two similar neighbors (stronger polysemy signal).
Team Name
nDCG@k
k=5
k=10
k=15
k=20
System 1
0.3639
0.3977
0.4143
0.4247
System 2
0.4919
0.4880
0.4879
0.4879
System 3
0.6020
0.6391
0.6560
0.6652
Table 5: nDCG@k scores at different ranked cutoffs for three systems on our subject indexing dataset.
Figure 2: nDCG@5 scores by the five record types.
Figure 3: nDCG@5 scores by the two languages.
Figure 4: nDCG@k scores, where k=5,10,15,20, for qualitative evaluation on 10 records per five domains. For this exercise, subject predictions were manually labeled Y and I by subject specialists at the library.
Appendix figures & tables8 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Error Category
Absolute Count
FNM
79
FNC
41
False Negatives (total)
120
Appendix
Table 6: Distribution of false negatives for 250 subject suggestions from System 1 (5 predicted labels per test set document) on 50 test-set documents with 161 gold-standard subjects.
AWACS [airborne warning and control system] gnd:4309079-5
O
22
0.406
OROR
Appendix
Table 7: System 1’s predictions for the test set record with ID 3A1007389885 , “Recent advancements in airborne radar signal processing: emerging research and opportunities” , dissecting which reasoning branch ( R ) identified each predicted label – analogical (A) or ontological (O) reasoning. The first five results are the top-5 predictions returned by the fusion system after merging the results from both A and O branches; the last row shows an actual ground-truth subject excluded from the retrieved list due to being outranked. Rank denotes the ranking of each subject within each reasoning branch (analogical vs. ontological), Sim. shows the cosine similarity to the query document in embedding space determining the ranking, and Eval. lists the human expert’s judgment of the predicted label.
Table 8: System 2 output for the record-ID 3A1007389885 “Recent advancements in airborne radar signal processing : emerging research and opportunities” with error category annotation.
Gold-standard term
GND identifier
Störsender [jamming transmitter]
gnd:4273774-6
AWACS [airborne warning and control system]
gnd:4309079-5
Raum-Zeit-Signalverarbeitung [space-time signal processing]
gnd:4834654-8
Bordradar [on board radar]
gnd:4456131-3
Zielerkennung [target recognition]
gnd:4190792-9
Täuschung (Militär) [deception (military)]
gnd:4184333-2
Appendix
Table 9: Gold-standard terms for the record-ID 3A1007389885 .
Error Category
Absolute Count
FNM
68
FNC
28
False Negatives (total)
96
Appendix
Table 10: Distribution of false negatives for 176 subject suggestions from System 2 on 50 test-set documents with 162 gold-standard subjects.
Prediction
GND identifier
Eval.
Error Cat.
Kreditrisiko [credit risk]
gnd:4114309-7
Y
FP, but relevant
Kreditmarkt [credit market]
gnd:4073788-3
Y
FP, but relevant
Zinsstrukturtheorie [term structure theory]
gnd:4117720-4
Y
FP, but relevant
Modellierung [modelling]
gnd:4170297-9
I
FP, technically correct
Semimartingal [semimartingale]
gnd:4180967-1
Y
TP
Appendix
Table 11: System 3 top-5 output for the record-ID 3A168734406X “Dynamic term structure modeling beyond the paradigm of absolute continuity” with expert evaluations and error category annotation.
Gold-standard subject
GND identifier
Freq.
Error Cat.
Arbitrage [arbitrage]
gnd:4002820-3
0
FNM
Semimartingal [semimartingale]
gnd:4180967-1
4
TP
Ausfallrisiko [default risk]
gnd:4205942-2
4
FNM5
Zinsstruktur [term structure]
gnd:4067855-6
1
FNC
HJM-Modell [HJM model]
gnd:4642940-2
1
FNM5
Appendix
Table 12: Gold-standard subjects for the record-ID 3A168734406X with train-set frequencies and error category annotation.
Figure 5: Train-frequency distribution (binned) for the System 3 predictions, split into true positives and three false-negative subtypes.
With a large controlled vocabulary as the label set, the task of automated subject indexing in a library can be understood as a multi-label classification task. If the set of subject terms is large, the problem fits the Extreme Multi-Label Classification (XMLC) objective. In this study, we apply a selection of specialised supervised XMLC methods to the test case of subject indexing contemporary German scientific literature, collected at the German National Library (DNB). We contrast these results by including a classical lexical matching baseline and three of our own recently developed LLM-based methods into the benchmark. Algorithms are evaluated and compared in several metrics. This includes binary relevance comparisons with previously indexed material, as well as graded relevance ratings by professional subject librarians. A challenge for all methods is to reliably make suggestions from the long tail of the subject vocabulary. We find that supervised XMLC algorithms relying on transformer-based dense features give best results in terms of overall binary relevance metrics. However, focusing on graded relevance and performance in the long tail of our subject vocabulary, the LLM-based generative methods give better results, making them a promising alternative for future productive use.
Maximilian Kähler, Katja Konermann, Lisa Kluge +1
Deutsche Nationalbibliothek Leipzig/ Frankfurt am Main, Germany
This paper presents a modular AI agentic skill pipeline for automating subject indexing with Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH). Subject indexing - the process of analyzing a work's aboutness, selecting controlled vocabulary terms, and encoding them as MARC21 subject access fields - is one of the most time-consuming components of library cataloging. The system decomposes this process into four discrete, sequentially executed agent skills: conceptual analysis, quantitative filtering, authority validation, and MARC field synthesis. Each skill encodes domain knowledge drawn directly from Library of Congress Subject Headings Manual (SHM) instruction sheets and subject analysis theory. The pipeline was evaluated against a corpus of ten titles whose existing subject headings were captured from the Harvard Library bibliographic dataset (a snapshot of their Alma ILS). Results demonstrate strong conceptual alignment with professional subject indexing practice, with notable differences in specificity, subdivision practice, and the agent's adherence to the 2026 LC policy discontinuing form subdivisions in favor of LCGFT 655 fields.
Thematic indexing -- the practice of assigning structured conceptual labels to sections of text -- is essential to scholarly access in large-scale literary and historical editions, yet it remains a largely manual, labour-intensive process. This paper explores the application of machine learning to automatic thematic indexing, using two substantial sub-corpora of the Complete Works of Voltaire as a test case: the Essai sur les mœurs et l'esprit des nations and the Questions sur l'Encyclopédie. The task is framed as a multi-label classification problem, in which a model must assign the set of index entries that a professional indexer would apply to a given page of text. We compare a range of approaches -- from encoder-based models with classification heads to generative large language models (LLMs) fine-tuned via Low-Rank Adaptation (LoRA) -- spanning model sizes from approximately 3 to 120 billion parameters. Our best-performing model, from the Mistral family in a 4-bit quantised configuration, achieves F1 scores of up to 0.67; we argue that these figures represent lower bounds, given the inherent subjectivity of professional indexing and the frequency with which model predictions prove semantically valid despite diverging from the print index. We further evaluate cross-corpus generalisation and conduct a detailed qualitative analysis of model behaviour on literary and rhetorical features of the source texts that prove particularly resistant to automated treatment. Our findings have implications for the broader challenge of providing structured thematic access to large-scale literary and historical corpora.