CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 1

Prediction-Oriented Bayesian Active Learning

Smith, Freddie Bickford, Kirsch, Andreas, Farquhar, Sebastian, Gal, Yarin, Foster, Adam, Rainforth, Tom·2023·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2304.08151arXiv 2304.08151
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Information-theoretic approaches to active learning have traditionally focused on maximising the information gathered about the model parameters, most commonly by optimising the BALD score. We highlight that this can be suboptimal from the perspective of predictive performance. For example, BALD lacks a notion of an input distribution and so is prone to prioritise data of limited relevance. To address this we propose the expected predictive information gain (EPIG), an acquisition function that measures information gain in the space of predictions rather than parameters. We find that using EPIG leads to stronger predictive performance compared with BALD across a range of datasets and models, and thus provides an appealing drop-in replacement.

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.2304.08151

Cites

1 of 1 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?

  • Withholding and purchasing optimise different scores, both distinct from entropy.

    “Withholding and purchasing optimise different scores [Bickford Smith et al., 2023], both distinct from entropy.”

    From Decomposing LLM-Judge Uncertainty to Target Expert Labels (2026) · cites this paper as Bickford Smith et al., 2023

    Section 2.1 describes purchasing a label as maximising an acquisition function, and Section 4 distinguishes EPIG from BALD; the paper also treats predictive entropy as a separate baseline (Additional information). Our copy does not describe withholding as an optimisation decision or identify a score for it, so it does not support the claimed withholding–purchasing contrast. The passages provide no page numbers. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • 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 Bickford Smith et al., 2023

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

Research works printed but not linked: 56

  1. Afrabandpey, Peltola, & Kaski (2019). Human-in-the-loop active covariance learning for improving prediction in small data sets. International Joint Conference on Ar- tificial Intelligence.
  2. Ardila, Branson, Davis, Kohler, Meyer, Henretty, Morais, Saunders, Tyers, & Weber (2020). Common Voice: a massively-multilingual speech corpus. Language Re- sources and Evaluation Conference.
  3. Arthur & Vassilvitskii (2007). k-means++: the advantages of careful seeding. ACM-SIAM Symposium on Discrete Algorithms.
  4. Ash, Zhang, Krishnamurthy, Langford, & Agarwal (2020). Deep batch active learning by diverse, uncertain gradi- ent lower bounds. International Conference on Learning Representations.
  5. Atighehchian, Branchaud-Charron, & Lacoste (2020). Bayesian active learning for production, a systematic study and a reusable library. Workshop on "Uncertainty and Robustness in Deep Learning", International Con- ference on Machine Learning.
  6. Atlas, Cohn, & Ladner (1989). Training connectionist net- works with queries and selective sampling. Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems.
  7. Barber & Agakov (2003). The IM algorithm: a variational approach to information maximization. Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems.
  8. Beck & Arnold (1977). Parameter Estimation in Engineer- ing and Science. Wiley.
  9. Belkin, Hsu, Ma, & Mandal (2019). Reconciling modern machine-learning practice and the classical bias-variance trade-off. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sci- ences.
  10. Beluch, Genewin, Nürnberger, & Kohler (2018). The power of ensembles for active learning in image clas- sification. Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition.
  11. Blei, Ng, & Jordan (2003). Latent Dirichlet allocation. Journal of Machine Learning Research.
  12. Chaloner & Verdinelli (1995). Bayesian experimental de- sign: a review. Statistical Science.
  13. Chapelle (2005). Active learning for Parzen window clas- sifier. International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics.
  14. Cohn (1993). Neural network exploration using optimal experiment design. Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems.
  15. Cohn, Ghahramani, & Jordan (1996). Active learning with statistical models. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Re- search.
  16. Cover & Thomas (2005). Elements of Information Theory. John Wiley and Sons.
  17. Dietterich (2000). Ensemble methods in machine learning. International Workshop on Multiple Classifier Systems.
  18. Donmez & Carbonell (2008). Optimizing estimated loss reduction for active sampling in rank learning. Interna- tional Conference on Machine Learning.
  19. Evans, Adams, & Anagnostopoulos (2015). Estimating op- timal active learning via model retraining improvement. arXiv.
  20. Filstroff, Sundin, Mikkola, Tiulpin, Kylmäoja, & Kaski (2021). Targeted active learning for Bayesian decision- making. arXiv.
  21. Foster, Jankowiak, Bingham, Horsfall, Teh, Rainforth, & Goodman (2019). Variational Bayesian optimal experi- mental design. Conference on Neural Information Pro- cessing Systems.
  22. Gal & Ghahramani (2016). Dropout as a Bayesian approxi- mation: representing model uncertainty in deep learning. International Conference on Machine Learning.
  23. Gal, Islam, & Ghahramani (2017). Deep Bayesian active learning with image data. International Conference on Machine Learning.
  24. Gemmeke, Ellis, Freedman, Jansen, Lawrence, Moore, Plakal, & Ritter (2017). Audio Set: an ontology and human-labeled dataset for audio events. International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing.
  25. Hastie, Tibshirani, Friedman, & Friedman (2009). The El- ements of Statistical Learning. Springer.
  26. Hennig & Schuler (2012). Entropy search for information- efficient global optimization. Journal of Machine Learn- ing Research.
  27. Hensman, Matthews, & Ghahramani (2015). Scalable vari- ational Gaussian process classification. International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics.
  28. Hernández-Lobato, Hoffman, & Ghahramani (2014). Pre- dictive entropy search for efficient global optimization of black-box functions. Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems.
  29. Hjort, Holmes, Müller, & Walker (2010). Bayesian Non- parametrics. Cambridge University Press.
  30. Horn & Johnson (2012). Matrix Analysis. Cambridge Uni- versity Press.
  31. Houlsby (2014). Efficient Bayesian active learning and matrix modelling. PhD thesis, University of Cambridge.
  32. Huszár (2013). Scoring rules, divergences and information in Bayesian machine learning. PhD thesis, University of Cambridge.
  33. Jeon (2020). ThompsonBALD: a new approach to Bayesian batch active learning for deep learning via Thompson sampling. Master's thesis, University Col- lege London.
  34. Karamcheti, Krishna, Fei-Fei, & Manning (2021). Mind your outliers! Investigating the negative impact of out- liers on active learning for visual question answering. In- ternational Joint Conference on Natural Language Pro- cessing.
  35. Kirsch, Farquhar, Atighehchian, Jesson, Branchaud- Charron, & Gal (2022). Stochastic batch acquisition for deep active learning. arXiv.
  36. Kirsch, van Amersfoort, & Gal (2019). BatchBALD: ef- ficient and diverse batch acquisition for deep Bayesian active learning. Conference on Neural Information Pro- cessing Systems.
  37. Krause, Singh, & Guestrin (2008). Near-optimal sensor placements in Gaussian processes: theory, efficient algo- rithms and empirical studies. Journal of Machine Learn- ing Research.
  38. Lakshminarayanan, Pritzel, & Blundell (2017). Simple and scalable predictive uncertainty estimation using deep en- sembles. Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems.
  39. LeCun, Bottou, Bengio, & Haffner (1998). Gradient-based learning applied to document recognition. Proceedings of the IEEE.
  40. Lee & Kim (2019). BALD-VAE: generative active learn- ing based on the uncertainties of both labeled and unla- beled data. International Conference on Robot Intelli- gence Technology and Applications.
  41. Lewis & Gale (1994). A sequential algorithm for train- ing text classifiers. ACM-SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval.
  42. Lindley (1956). On a measure of the information provided by an experiment. Annals of Mathematical Statistics.
  43. Liu, Wang, Ranjan, He, & Zhao (2022). A survey on active deep learning: from model driven to data driven. ACM Computing Surveys.
  44. Mahajan, Girshick, Ramanathan, He, Paluri, Li, Bharambe, & van der Maaten (2018). Exploring the limits of weakly supervised pretraining. European Conference on Com- puter Vision.
  45. Munjal, Hayat, Hayat, Sourati, & Khan (2022). Towards robust and reproducible active learning using neural net- works. Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition.
  46. Nalisnick, Matsukawa, Teh, Gorur, & Lakshminarayanan (2018). Do deep generative models know what they don't know? arXiv.
  47. Pedregosa, Varoquaux, Gramfort, Michel, Thirion, Grisel, Blondel, Prettenhofer, Weiss, Dubourg, VanderPlas, Pas- sos, Cournapeau, Brucher, Perrot, & Duchesnay (2011). Scikit-learn: machine learning in Python. Journal of Ma- chine Learning Research.
  48. Pinsler, Gordon, Nalisnick, & Hernández-Lobato (2019). Bayesian batch active learning as sparse subset approx- imation. Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems.
  49. Radford, Kim, Hallacy, Ramesh, Goh, Agarwal, Sastry, Askell, Mishkin, Clark, Krueger, & Sutskever (2021). Learning transferable visual models from natural lan- guage supervision. International Conference on Ma- chine Learning.
  50. Raffel, Shazeer, Roberts, Lee, Narang, Matena, Zhou, Li, & Liu (2020). Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text transformer. Journal of Ma- chine Learning Research.
  51. Rainforth, Foster, Ivanova, & Bickford Smith (2023). Mod- ern Bayesian experimental design. arXiv.
  52. Roy & McCallum (2001). Toward optimal active learning through sampling estimation of error reduction. Interna- tional Conference on Machine Learning.
  53. Seo, Wallat, Graepel, & Obermayer (2000). Gaussian pro- cess regression: active data selection and test point re- jection. International Joint Conference on Neural Net- works.
  54. Settles & Craven (2008). An analysis of active learning strategies for sequence labeling tasks. Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing.
  55. Sharma, Farquhar, Nalisnick, & Rainforth (2023). Do Bayesian neural networks need to be fully stochastic? International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics.
  56. Shen, Yun, Lipton, Kronrod, & Anandkumar (2018). Deep active learning for named entity recognition. Interna- tional Conference on Learning Representations.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Smith, F. B., Kirsch, A., Farquhar, S., Gal, Y., Foster, A., & Rainforth, T.
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2023
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2304.08151
arXiv
2304.08151
References
1
Type
Preprint
Licence
arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/

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