PreprintCited by 981Machine Learning and AlgorithmsGaussian Processes and Bayesian InferenceAdvanced Bandit Algorithms Research

Bayesian Active Learning for Classification and Preference Learning

Open access
Houlsby, Neil, Huszár, Ferenc, Ghahramani, Zoubin, Lengyel, Máté·2011·arXiv

Abstract

Information theoretic active learning has been widely studied for probabilistic models. For simple regression an optimal myopic policy is easily tractable. However, for other tasks and with more complex models, such as classification with nonparametric models, the optimal solution is harder to compute. Current approaches make approximations to achieve tractability. We propose an approach that expresses information gain in terms of predictive entropies, and apply this method to the Gaussian Process Classifier (GPC). Our approach makes minimal approximations to the full information theoretic objective. Our experimental performance compares favourably to many popular active learning algorithms, and has equal or lower computational complexity. We compare well to decision theoretic approaches also, which are privy to more information and require much more computational time. Secondly, by developing further a reformulation of binary preference learning to a classification problem, we extend our algorithm to Gaussian Process preference learning.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.1112.5745

Cites

14 of 14 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Epistemic uncertainty is used to guide methods that require exploration like active learning, continual learning, Bayesian optimisation, and reinforcement learning.

    “It is also used to guide methods that require exploration like active learning [53], continual learning [92], Bayesian optimisation [47], and reinforcement learning [58].”
  • The epistemic term I_x is BALD's acquisition score.

    “The epistemic term I x is BALD's acquisition score [Houlsby et al., 2011]”

    From Decomposing LLM-Judge Uncertainty to Target Expert Labels (2026) · cites this paper as Houlsby et al., 2011

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

11 of the 25 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Houlsby, N., Huszár, F., Ghahramani, Z., & Lengyel, M.
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2011
OpenAlex
W1872312298
Cited by
507
References
25
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 35 · 2024: 62 · 2023: 86 · 2022: 54 · 2021: 111 · 2020: 64 · 2019: 40 · 2018: 20 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 1
FWCI
1.55
Type
book
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Cambridge University Engineering Department Publications Database (acceptedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning and Algorithms
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Gaussian Processes and Bayesian Inference
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Advanced Bandit Algorithms Research
Keywords
Bayesian active learning, information gain, predictive entropy, Gaussian process classifier, preference learning, classification, nonparametric models

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