Active learning (AL) is a training paradigm for selecting unlabeled samples for annotation to improve model performance on a test set, which is useful when only a limited number of samples can be annotated. These algorithms often work by optimizing for the informativeness and diversity of the training data to be annotated. Recent work found that AL strategies fail to outperform random sampling on various language generation tasks when using 100-500 samples. To understand AL's poor performance when only using few samples, we investigate whether the core assumptions underlying AL strategies hold. We find that neither the informativeness nor diversity of the training data, which AL strategies optimize for, are correlated with test set performance. Instead, factors like the ordering of the training samples and interactions with pre-training data have a larger impact on performance. This suggests that future AL methods must take these factors into account in order to work with very few samples.
Figures & tables
Flan-T5
Llama 3.1
Gemma 2
Eng-Afr
Eng-Ger
Eng-Fil
Eng-Afr
Eng-Ger
Eng-Fil
Eng-Afr
Eng-Ger
Eng-Fil
BALD
7.23 ± 1.8
42.72 ± 0.4
19.8 ± 11.3
* 68.29 ± 0.2
74.18 ± 0.6
* 64.52 ± 0.2
* 60.04 ± 0.3
68.58 ± 0.4
59.13 ± 0.6
Core Set
5.03 ± 2.0
43.18 ± 0.6
22.9 ± 6.5
* 68.51 ± 0.4
74.61 ± 0.2
63.85 ± 0.2
58.28 ± 1.2
68.33 ± 0.7
59.04 ± 0.3
DelFy
3.47 ± 0.7
42.10 ± 1.4
27.3 ± 4.0
67.91 ± 0.3
* 74.90 ± 0.1
63.31 ± 0.3
* 59.10 ± 0.4
68.42 ± 0.3
58.18 ± 0.6
Lex. Sim
8.38 ± 0.9
41.14 ± 0.3
20.3 ± 9.8
67.54 ± 0.1
74.69 ± 0.0
0 ± 0
57.01 ± 0.1
68.33 ± 0.2
58.05 ± 0.7
Mean Ent
5.82 ± 1.4
42.81 ± 0.8
18.7 ± 1.5
67.08 ± 1.3
74.53 ± 0.2
63.21 ± 0.1
59.50 ± 0.9
68.27 ± 0.3
59.13 ± 0.8
Table 1: Various AL baselines fail to outperform random sampling when using b=100 samples (reporting test set ChrF score across three seeds), * indicates significant difference from random (one-way Mann-Whitney, α=0.05 ). The 0±0 entry (Lex. Sim., Llama 3.1, Eng-Fil) is a failed run; see text.
Flan-T5
Llama 3.1
Gemma 2
Eng-Afr
Eng-Ger
Eng-Fil
Eng-Afr
Eng-Ger
Eng-Fil
Eng-Afr
Eng-Ger
Eng-Fil
Diversity
Vocabulary Size
-0.0420
0.0438
0.0162
0.0121
0.0153
-0.0802
-0.0131
-0.0214
0.117
DelFy (Source)
0.1256
-0.0521
0.0267
-0.0960
0.1124
0.0724
-0.0145
0.0086
-0.2071
DelFy (Target)
* 0.2924
-0.0819
0.1646
-0.0781
-0.0301
0.0622
0.0459
-0.0479
0.0721
L2 Distance
-0.0454
0.0693
0.0002
0.0243
0.1683
-0.0300
-0.0366
0.0878
0.1018
Informativeness
Avg Token Ent
-0.0012
-0.0589
-0.1143
0.0237
0.0746
0.0461
-0.1482
0.0855
0.0487
Table 2: Spearman correlation between AL metrics and model performance with 100 samples for training (Test Set ChrF), * displayed for correlations significantly different from zero ( α=0.05 with Bonferroni correction)
Figure 1: Fine-tuning on different subsets of the data yields considerable variance in test set performance; Plotted using 100 subsets with 100 samples each
Figure 2: Pre-SFT model performance on the samples chosen by AL strategies for Gemma-2 on Eng-Afr (left) and Eng-Fil (right) shows that AL strategies tend to choose samples in the lower and middle range of pre-SFT performance, rather than samples the model already translates well; strategies vary in where they concentrate
Figure 3: Test set ChrF+ (FLORES Plus) when fine-tuning models on unlabeled data (NLLB) with varying degrees of difficulty (using 500 unlabeled samples, 3 seeds, difficulty measured using pre-SFT model performance)
Flan-T5
Llama 3.1
Gemma 2
Eng-Afr
0.81
0.71
0.80
Eng-Ger
0.83
0.81
0.53
Eng-Fil
0.75
0.90
0.71
Eng-Afr
0.79
0.92
0.84
Eng-Ger
0.81
0.94
0.65
Eng-Fil
0.93
0.80
0.80
Table 3: Proportion of variance in ChrF from ordering using 100 (top) and 500 (bottom) samples, computed using ten shuffles of ten subsets of data (100 total)
Type
Text
Comment
Source
“We now have 4-month-old mice that are non-diabetic that used to be diabetic,” he added
Target
“Mayroon na tayong 4 na buwang gulang na daga na hindi diabetic na dating diabetic,” dagdag niya
Prediction (Step 23)
“We now have 4-month-old mice na hindi-diabetic,” katanya .
Foreign (Indonesian; katanya : he said)
Prediction (Step 70)
“We ngayon mayroon dalawang buwan gulang na mga maliliit na… katawan ng”
OOD word ( gulang : age/old)
Table 4: Models generate words not in the training data, both correctly ( gulang ) and incorrectly ( katanya )
Figure 4: Plot of % Filipino vocabulary per test example trained on vs. generated at test time (i.e. learned); Training on more vocabulary does not mean the model learns to generate those vocabulary; Each point is generated using a sample in the test set
% Covered
% Similarity
Flan-T5
Eng-Afr
-0.0854
-0.0994
Eng-Ger
0.1816
0.1872
Eng-Fil
0.1124
0.1401
Llama 3.1
Eng-Afr
-0.0119
0.0051
Eng-Ger
-0.0533
-0.0788
Eng-Fil
-0.0727
-0.0094
Table 5: Spearman correlation between model test set performance and the similarity between the train and test set, using 100 samples for training, * indicates correlation is significantly different from zero ( α=0.05 with Bonferroni correction)
Appendix figures & tables7 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Flan-T5
Llama-3.1
Gemma-2
Eng-Afr
Eng-Ger
Eng-Fil
Eng-Afr
Eng-Ger
Eng-Fil
Eng-Afr
Eng-Ger
Eng-Fil
BALD
29.58 ± 1.4
43.88 ± 0.2
29.7 ± 3.3
68.91 ± 0.3
74.53 ± 0.2
63.43 ± 0.4
59.62 ± 1.1
68.38 ± 0.3
60.29 ± 0.4
Core Set
14.11 ± 4.3
44.39 ± 0.4
30.73 ± 3
68.35 ± 0.6
74.56 ± 0.3
63.92 ± 1
59.16 ± 1.2
68.17 ± 0.3
60.32 ± 0.3
DelFy
20.12 ± 1.7
43.51 ± 0.8
28.7 ± 0.8
68.64 ± 0.3
74.48 ± 0.1
63.93 ± 0.8
58.63 ± 1.2
68.49 ± 0.3
59.12 ± 0.8
Lex. Sim
11.15 ± 2.9
43.63 ± 0.2
28.05 ± 1
66.57 ± 0.3
73.72 ± 0.2
0 ± 0
55.2 ± 0.5
68.02 ± 0.4
57.13 ± 0.8
Mean Ent
23.62 ± 2.8
43.12 ± 0.7
29.64 ± 1
64.95 ± 1.3
74.24 ± 0.4
62.97 ± 0.5
60.36 ± 0.7
68.3 ± 0.3
60.15 ± 0.6
Appendix
Table 6: AL baseline performance with 500 samples with st. deviation reported across 3 seeds (Test Set ChrF). The 0±0 entry (Lex. Sim., Llama-3.1, Eng-Fil) is a failed run; see Section 4 .
Figure 5: Fine-tuning on different subsets of the data yields considerable variance in test set performance; Plotted using 100 subsets with 500 samples each
Flan-T5
Llama 3.1
Gemma 2
Eng-Afr
Eng-Ger
Eng-Fil
Eng-Afr
Eng-Ger
Eng-Fil
Eng-Afr
Eng-Ger
Eng-Fil
Diversity
Vocabulary Size
0.0684
0.07
0.0884
-0.1686
0.0822
0.0046
-0.1408
0.0483
0.0072
DelFy (Source)
-0.076
0.0856
0.0011
-0.0138
0.0186
0.0107
-0.0053
0.0071
0.0144
DelFy (Target)
-0.0072
-0.0522
-0.0932
-0.0606
0.0674
-0.1436
-0.1091
-0.0656
0.1121
L2 Distance
-0.1665
0.0208
0.0411
0.0381
-0.0834
0.0388
-0.0736
0.1915
-0.104
Informativeness
Avg Token Entropy
-0.2114
0.0027
-0.0485
0.0555
0.1523
0.0463
-0.1427
-0.1159
0.0715
Appendix
Table 7: Spearman correlation between AL metrics and model performance using 500 samples for training (Test Set ChrF), * displayed for correlations significantly different from zero ( α=0.05 with Bonferroni correction)
% Vocab Covered in Test
% Vocab Jaccard Similarity to Test
Flan-T5
Eng-Afr
0.1021
0.1051
Eng-Ger
0.0178
-0.0026
Eng-Fil
0.2322
0.2287
Llama 3.1
Eng-Afr
-0.0946
0.031
Eng-Ger
0.0899
0.0537
Eng-Fil
0.0541
0.0209
Appendix
Table 8: Spearman correlation between model test set performance and the similarity between the training and test set, using 500 samples for training * added if the correlation is significantly different from zero
Figure 6: Performance of model pre-SFT on candidates chosen by various strategies across three models and three tasks
Figure 7: Test performance when fine-tuning models on unlabeled data with varying degrees of difficulty (measured using pre-SFT model performance) using 2000 unlabeled samples
Set
Step
Input
Target
Train
91
A prayer for our beloved nation.
Isang panalangin sa aming mahal na nasyon.
Set
Step
Input
Prediction
Test
94
The tenth named storm of the Atlantic Hurricane season, Subtropical Storm Jerry, formed in the Atlantic Ocean today.
Ang lalake ang huling named na na na named na ang panalangin …, ang panalangin sa Atlantic ng Amerika…
95
The number of people present was so large that it was not possible for everybody to gain access to the funeral in St. Peter’s Square.
Ang mga tao na ito ay hindi posible para sa lahat ng tao ang panalangin sa St. Peter’s Square.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper has agreed to send the government’s ’Clean Air Act’… for review, before its second reading, after Tuesday’s 25 minute meeting with NDP leader Jack Layton at the PMO.
Stephen Harper ay nag-iisa ang panalangin sa ang lahat ng mga tao para sa panalangin …
97
The final match of the series will take place at Ellis Park in Johannesburg next week, when the Springboks play Australia.
Ang palangin sa Ellis Park sa Johannesburg, ang panalangin sa Australia ng mga tao ng mga tao ng Australia.
Appendix
Table 9: Models incorrectly generate the word panalangin across various samples after being fine-tuned on an example with the word ( Red indicates wrong usage of the word)
Human annotation cost and time remain significant bottlenecks in Natural Language Processing (NLP), with test data annotation being particularly expensive due to the stringent requirement for low-error and high-quality labels necessary for reliable model evaluation. Traditional approaches require annotating entire test sets, leading to substantial resource requirements. Active Testing is a framework that selects the most informative test samples for annotation. Given a labeling budget, it aims to choose the subset that best estimates model performance while minimizing cost and human effort. In this work, we formalize Active Testing in NLP and we conduct an extensive benchmarking of existing approaches across 18 datasets and 4 embedding strategies spanning 4 different NLP tasks. The experiments show annotation reductions of up to 95%, with performance estimation accuracy difference from the full test set within 1%. Our analysis reveals variations in method effectiveness across different data characteristics and task types, with no single approach emerging as universally superior. Lastly, to address the limitation of requiring a predefined annotation budget in existing sample selection strategies, we introduce an adaptive stopping criterion that automatically determines the optimal number of samples. We release our code at https://github.com/amazon-science/NLPActiveTesting.
Antonio Purificato, Maria Sofia Bucarelli, Andrea Bacciu +2
Amazon · Sapienza University of Rome · Université Côte d’Azur, CNRS, Inria, I3S
Active Learning (AL) is commonly used in applications where labeling data is expensive or time-consuming. In practice, however, labels are often noisy due to varying labeler expertise and annotation uncertainty, especially for complex or ambiguous samples. Learning from such imperfectly labeled data can degrade classifier performance. We propose an AL framework that explicitly accounts for label noise by optimally assigning labelers and selecting samples to minimize labeling error. Our approach, called OLAS (Optimal Labeler Assignment and Sampling), uses a noise model that depends on both labeler accuracy and model uncertainty to guide these decisions. We develop two tractable optimization formulations: one for assigning samples to labelers to minimize worst-case noise, and another for selecting samples while controlling overall label noise. Theoretical results provide closed-form solutions under mild conditions. Empirical evaluations on benchmark datasets and a real-world warranty claim classification problem show that OLAS achieves the highest or near-highest classification accuracy among existing AL strategies across most settings, using only a single label per sample.
Pouya Ahadi, Blair Winograd, Camille Zaug +3
School of Industrial and Systems Engineering Georgia Institute of Technology Atlanta, GA 30332, USA · Ford Motor Company
Large language models (LLMs) require reliable evaluation from pre-training to test-time scaling, making evaluation a recurring rather than one-off cost. As model scales grow and target tasks increasingly demand expert annotators, both the compute and labeling costs needed for each evaluation rise rapidly. Active testing aims to alleviate this bottleneck by approximating the evaluation result from a small but informative subset of the evaluation pool. However, existing approaches primarily target classification and break down on generative tasks. We introduce a novel active testing algorithm tailored to generative tasks. Our method leverages semantic entropy from surrogate models to stratify the evaluation pool and then conducts approximate Neyman allocation based on signals extracted from these surrogates. Across multiple language and multimodal benchmarks and a range of surrogate-target model pairs, our method significantly improves on baselines and closely tracks Oracle-Neyman, delivering up to 28% MSE reduction over Uniform Sampling and an average of 22.9% budget savings.