Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

Active Learning with Partial Feedback

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 1802.07427 v4 pith:KPHSPIXG submitted 2018-02-21 cs.LG

Active Learning with Partial Feedback

classification cs.LG
keywords activelabelexamplelearnerlearningpartialannotationannotate
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

While many active learning papers assume that the learner can simply ask for a label and receive it, real annotation often presents a mismatch between the form of a label (say, one among many classes), and the form of an annotation (typically yes/no binary feedback). To annotate examples corpora for multiclass classification, we might need to ask multiple yes/no questions, exploiting a label hierarchy if one is available. To address this more realistic setting, we propose active learning with partial feedback (ALPF), where the learner must actively choose both which example to label and which binary question to ask. At each step, the learner selects an example, asking if it belongs to a chosen (possibly composite) class. Each answer eliminates some classes, leaving the learner with a partial label. The learner may then either ask more questions about the same example (until an exact label is uncovered) or move on immediately, leaving the first example partially labeled. Active learning with partial labels requires (i) a sampling strategy to choose (example, class) pairs, and (ii) learning from partial labels between rounds. Experiments on Tiny ImageNet demonstrate that our most effective method improves 26% (relative) in top-1 classification accuracy compared to i.i.d. baselines and standard active learners given 30% of the annotation budget that would be required (naively) to annotate the dataset. Moreover, ALPF-learners fully annotate TinyImageNet at 42% lower cost. Surprisingly, we observe that accounting for per-example annotation costs can alter the conventional wisdom that active learners should solicit labels for hard examples.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Factorization Regret mediates compositional generalization in latent space

    cs.LG 2026-03 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Factorization Regret measures how latent variable interactions affect performance, and RCCs enable learning them to achieve compositional generalization in partially observable tasks.

  2. Are Candidate Models Really Needed for Active Learning?

    cs.CV 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0

    Active learning with randomly initialized models achieves comparable results to traditional candidate-model methods, with low-confidence sampling proving most effective.