Cost-Effective Active Learning from Diverse Labelers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In traditional active learning, there is only one labeler that always returns the ground truth of queried labels. However, in many applications, multiple labelers are available to offer diverse qualities of labeling with different costs. In this paper, we perform active selection on both instances and labelers, aiming to improve the classification model most with the lowest cost. While the cost of a labeler is proportional to its overall labeling quality, we also observe that different labelers usually have diverse expertise, and thus it is likely that labelers with a low overall quality can provide accurate labels on some specific instances. Based on this fact, we propose a novel active selection criterion to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of instance-labeler pairs, which ensures that the selected instance is helpful for improving the classification model, and meanwhile the selected labeler can provide an accurate label for the instance with a relative low cost. Experiments on both UCI and real crowdsourcing data sets demonstrate the superiority of our proposed approach on selecting cost-effective queries.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".