On the Fragility of Active Learners

Active learning (AL) techniques aim to maximally utilize a labeling budget by iteratively selecting instances that are most likely to improve prediction accuracy. However, their benefit compared to random sampling has not been consistent across various setups, e.g., different datasets, classifiers. In this empirical study, we examine how a combination of different factors might obscure any gains from an AL technique. Focusing on text classification, we rigorously evaluate AL techniques over around 1000 experiments that vary wrt the dataset, batch size, text representation and the classifier. We show that AL is only effective in a narrow set of circumstances. We also address the problem of using metrics that are better aligned with real world expectations. The impact of this study is in its insights for a practitioner: (a) the choice of text representation and classifier is as important as that of an AL technique, (b) choice of the right metric is critical in assessment of the latter, and, finally, (c) reported AL results must be holistically interpreted, accounting for variables other than just the query strategy.

Are Good Explainers Secretly Human-in-the-Loop Active Learners?

Explainable AI (XAI) techniques have become popular for multiple use-cases in the past few years. Here we consider its use in studying model predictions to gather additional training data. We argue that this is equivalent to Active Learning, where the query strategy involves a human-in-the-loop. We provide a mathematical approximation for the role of the human, and present a general formalization of the end-to-end workflow. This enables us to rigorously compare this use with standard Active Learning algorithms, while allowing for extensions to the workflow. An added benefit is that their utility can be assessed via simulation instead of conducting expensive user-studies. We also present some initial promising results.