Cited by 655Machine Learning and AlgorithmsDomain Adaptation and Few-Shot LearningMachine Learning and Data Classification

The Power of Ensembles for Active Learning in Image Classification

Beluch, William H., Genewein, Tim, Nurnberger, Andreas, Kohler, Jan M.·2018·2018 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

Abstract

Deep learning methods have become the de-facto standard for challenging image processing tasks such as image classification. One major hurdle of deep learning approaches is that large sets of labeled data are necessary, which can be prohibitively costly to obtain, particularly in medical image diagnosis applications. Active learning techniques can alleviate this labeling effort. In this paper we investigate some recently proposed methods for active learning with high-dimensional data and convolutional neural network classifiers. We compare ensemble-based methods against Monte-Carlo Dropout and geometric approaches. We find that ensembles perform better and lead to more calibrated predictive uncertainties, which are the basis for many active learning algorithms. To investigate why Monte-Carlo Dropout uncertainties perform worse, we explore potential differences in isolation in a series of experiments. We show results for MNIST and CIFAR-10, on which we achieve a test set accuracy of 90% with roughly 12,200 labeled images, and initial results on ImageNet. Additionally, we show results on a large, highly class-imbalanced diabetic retinopathy dataset. We observe that the ensemble-based active learning effectively counteracts this imbalance during acquisition.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/cvpr.2018.00976

Cites

63 of 63 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • On MS-COCO last active learning cycle, our method outperforms the semi-supervised method, multi-model methods, and the best AL method by 1.6%.

    “We observe that this difference is maintained in the other cycles, including the last active learning cycle where our method outperforms the semisupervised method, multi-model methods [9, 12] and the best AL method [5] by 1 . 6% .”

    From Not All Labels Are Equal: Rationalizing The Labeling Costs for Training Object Detection (2021) · cites this paper as [9]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 64 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Beluch, W. H., Genewein, T., Nurnberger, A., & Kohler, J. M.
Affiliations
Robert Bosch (United States) (US)
Venue
2018 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition
Publisher
IEEE
Published
2018-06
Pages
9368-9377
ISSN
1063-6919 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2798820905
Cited by
655
References
64
Citations by year
2026: 33 · 2025: 69 · 2024: 117 · 2023: 120 · 2022: 94 · 2021: 115 · 2020: 72 · 2019: 31 · 2018: 4
FWCI
22.66
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition/Proceedings - IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition/Proceedings (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning and Algorithms
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Domain Adaptation and Few-Shot Learning
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning and Data Classification
Keywords
active learning (machine learning), image classification, ensemble methods, Monte Carlo dropout, uncertainty estimation, convolutional neural networks, class imbalance, diabetic retinopathy, medical image diagnosis, high-dimensional data

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review