Batch active learning (BAL) is a crucial technique for reducing labeling costs and improving data efficiency in training large-scale deep learning models. Traditional BAL methods often rely on metrics like Mahalanobis Distance to balance uncertainty and diversity when selecting data for annotation. However, these methods predominantly focus on the distribution of unlabeled data and fail to leverage feedback from labeled data or the model's performance. To address these limitations, we introduce TrustSet, a novel approach that selects the most informative data from the labeled dataset, ensuring a balanced class distribution to mitigate the long-tail problem. Unlike CoreSet, which focuses on maintaining the overall data distribution, TrustSet optimizes the model's performance by pruning redundant data and using label information to refine the selection process. To extend the benefits of TrustSet to the unlabeled pool, we propose a reinforcement learning (RL)-based sampling policy that approximates the selection of high-quality TrustSet candidates from the unlabeled data. Combining TrustSet and RL, we introduce the Batch Reinforcement Active Learning with TrustSet (BRAL-T) framework. BRAL-T achieves state-of-the-art results across 10 image classification benchmarks and 2 active fine-tuning tasks, demonstrating its effectiveness and efficiency in various domains.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: An overview of the BRAL-T framework, which consists of two main processes: (1) Active Learning for data selection. (2) Reinforcement Learning to approximate TrustSet selection.
Figure 2: Details of BRAL-T. (a) Active Learning Process: πϕi selects the subset Si from Ui for the oracle to annotate, and the model MθLi+1 is trained on Si∪Li . (b) RL process: we sample L and U from Li+1 to train policy πϕi+1 .
Figure 3: Reinforcement learning process. We use U0 as an example for process in the figure.
Methods
FashionMNIST
EMNIST
CIFAR10
CIFAR100
AUBC
F-acc
AUBC
F-acc
AUBC
F-acc
AUBC
F-acc
LossPrediction
0.859
0.888
0.762
0.793
0.837
0.911
0.481
0.655
WAAL
0.861
0.891
0.808
0.831
0.842
0.883
0.460
0.594
RandomSample
0.844
0.874
0.804
0.828
0.832
0.902
0.517
0.650
BRAL-T
0.863
0.894
0.813
0.833
0.847
0.916
0.525
0.662
Table 1: Experiment results of image classification task on 8 benchmarks.
Figure 4: Visualization of experiment results on Cifar10, Cifar10-imb, Cifar100 and FashionMNIST.
Methods
Cifar10-LT-r10
Cifar10-LT-r20
Cifar100-LT-r10
Cifar100-LT-r20
AUBC
F-acc
AUBC
F-acc
AUBC
F-acc
AUBC
F-acc
TiDAL
0.510
0.619
0.435
0.583
0.398
0.450
0.365
0.420
SIMILAR
0.507
0.654
0.431
0.566
0.405
0.514
0.366
0.460
LossPrediction
0.478
0.679
0.413
0.585
0.424
0.516
0.380
0.460
WAAL
0.510
0.623
0.435
0.589
0.381
0.458
0.342
0.412
RandomSample
0.476
0.686
0.397
0.587
0.382
0.463
0.343
0.410
Table 2: Experiment results on Cifar10-LT and Cifar100-LT datasets.
Table 7
Appendix figures & tables10 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Benchmarks
∣L0∣
∣U0∣
Q
b
#e
C
FashionMNIST
500
59,500
10,000
250
40
10
EMNIST
1,000
696,932
50,000
500
40
62
CIFAR10
1,000
49,000
40,000
500
50
10
CIFAR100
1,000
49,000
40,000
500
60
100
CIFAR10-imb
1,000
27,239
20,000
500
50
10
CIFAR10-LT
1,000
-
∣D∣
100
50
10
Appendix
Table 5: Setting of benchmarks. Where ∣L0∣ refers to size of initial labeled set, ∣U0∣ refers to size of initial unlabeled data pool, Q refers to budget, b refers to batch size for target model training, #e refers to number of epoch for target model training and C refers to number of clusters from unlabeled data pool. For all the benchmarks, the number of clusters M from labeled dataset is set to be the same as C and number of candidate action for Uc is set to be 5.
Methods
FashionMNIST
EMNIST
CIFAR10
CIFAR100
AUBC
F-acc
AUBC
F-acc
AUBC
F-acc
AUBC
F-acc
LossPrediction
± 0.002
± 0.038
± 0.016
± 0.022
± 0.006
± 0.012
± 0.019
± 0.012
WAAL
± 0.002
± 0.015
± 0.012
± 0.015
± 0.006
± 0.009
± 0.006
± 0.011
RandomSample
± 0.001
± 0.009
± 0.004
± 0.007
± 0.003
± 0.011
± 0.003
± 0.008
BRAL-T
± 0.001
± 0.008
± 0.005
± 0.014
± 0.003
± 0.006
± 0.004
± 0.009
Appendix
Table 6: Confidence Interval of Experiment results of image classification task.
Figure 5: Time Cost of BRAL-T and baselines.
Figure 6: Pairwise Comparison of BRAL-T, VAAL, SAAL and BAIT.
Method
AUBC
F-Acc
LossPrediction
0.748
0.848
WAAL
0.752
0.799
RandomSample
0.710
0.810
BRAL-T
0.762
0.851
BRAL-T (two agents)
0.755
0.837
Appendix
Table 7: BRAL-T reusing two RL agents.
Figure 7: Accuracy-budget curve of Different Initial Labeled Set Quality.
Initial Method
AUBC
F-Acc
Random
0.762
0.851
Twisted Main
0.750
0.855
Twisted Rare
0.756
0.855
Appendix
Table 8: Experiment Result of Different Initial Labeled Set Quality.
Figure 8: Comparison between BRAL-T with RL policy and Ground Truth Labels.
# Actions
AUBC
F-Acc
5
0.762
0.851
10
0.763
0.853
50
0.755
0.851
100
0.758
0.854
Appendix
Table 9: Ablation Study on Different Candidate Action Number.
λ
AUBC
F-Acc
0.25
0.762
0.851
1.00
0.752
0.842
2.00
0.749
0.830
Appendix
Table 10: Impact of λ value on CIFAR10-imb dataset.
Over the past couple of decades, many active learning acquisition functions have been proposed, leaving practitioners with an unclear choice of which to use. Bayesian active learning offers principled objectives with explainable intuition, including Expected Error Reduction (EER), Expected Predictive Information Gain (EPIG), and Bayesian Active Learning by Disagreements (BALD). A key challenge of such methods is the difficulty of extending to the batch setting, leading to either computational challenges (BatchBALD) or dramatic performance drops (top-B selection). In this work, we extend active learning's Bayesian Decision Theory framework to derive Partial Batch Label Sampling (ParBaLS) for the EPIG algorithm. We show experimentally that ParBaLS EPIG gives superior performance for a variety of datasets with different budgets using Bayesian logistic regression on embeddings from large pre-trained models. Our code is available at https://github.com/ADDAPT-ML/ParBaLS.
Kangping Hu, Stephen Mussmann
Department of Computer Science, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA 30332
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
Active learning (AL) has emerged as a crucial methodology for minimizing labeling costs in deep learning by selecting the most valuable samples from a pool of unlabeled data for annotation. Traditional AL operates under a closed-set assumption, where all classes in the dataset are known and consistent. However, real-world scenarios often present open-set conditions in which unlabeled data contains both known and unknown classes. In such environments, standard AL techniques struggle. They can mistakenly query samples from unknown categories, leading to inefficient use of annotation budgets. In this paper, we propose a novel dual-stage energy-based framework for open-set AL. Our method employs two specialized energy-based models (EBMs). The first, an energy-based known/unknown separator, filters out samples likely to belong to unknown classes. The second, an energy-based sample scorer, assesses the informativeness of the filtered known samples. Using the energy landscape, our models distinguish between data points from known and unknown classes in the unlabeled pool by assigning lower energy to known samples and higher energy to unknown samples, ensuring that only samples from classes of interest are selected for labeling. By integrating these components, our approach ensures efficient and targeted sample selection, maximizing learning impact in each iteration. Experiments on 2D (CIFAR-10, CIFAR-100, TinyImageNet) and 3D (ModelNet40) object classification benchmarks demonstrates that our framework outperforms existing approaches, achieving superior annotation efficiency and classification performance in open-set environments.
Zongyao Lyu, William J. Beksi
The University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington TX 76019, USA