Looking Back on the Past: Active Learning with Historical Evaluation Results : Extended Abstract
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Active learning is effective for tasks with limited labeled data by annotating a small set of data actively. It utilizes the current trained model to evaluate all unlabeled samples and annotates the best samples scored by a specific query strategy to update the underlying model iteratively. Most active learning approaches rely on only the current evaluation score but ignore the results from previous iterations. In this paper, we propose using more historical evaluation results which can provide additional information to help better select samples. First, we apply two heuristic features of the historical evaluation results, i.e. the weighted sum and the fluctuation of history sequences. Next, to make fuller use of the information contained in the historical results, we design a query strategy that learns to select samples based on the history sequence automatically. Our proposed idea is general and can be combined with both basic and state-of-the-art query strategies to achieve improvements. Experimental results show that our methods significantly promote existing methods.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it