Revisiting Active Learning under (Human) Label Variation
Authors:
Cornelia Gruber,
Helen Alber,
Bernd Bischl,
Göran Kauermann,
Barbara Plank,
Matthias Aßenmacher
Abstract:
Access to high-quality labeled data remains a limiting factor in applied supervised learning. While label variation (LV), i.e., differing labels for the same instance, is common, especially in natural language processing, annotation frameworks often still rest on the assumption of a single ground truth. This overlooks human label variation (HLV), the occurrence of plausible differences in annotati…
▽ More
Access to high-quality labeled data remains a limiting factor in applied supervised learning. While label variation (LV), i.e., differing labels for the same instance, is common, especially in natural language processing, annotation frameworks often still rest on the assumption of a single ground truth. This overlooks human label variation (HLV), the occurrence of plausible differences in annotations, as an informative signal. Similarly, active learning (AL), a popular approach to optimizing the use of limited annotation budgets in training ML models, often relies on at least one of several simplifying assumptions, which rarely hold in practice when acknowledging HLV. In this paper, we examine foundational assumptions about truth and label nature, highlighting the need to decompose observed LV into signal (e.g., HLV) and noise (e.g., annotation error). We survey how the AL and (H)LV communities have addressed -- or neglected -- these distinctions and propose a conceptual framework for incorporating HLV throughout the AL loop, including instance selection, annotator choice, and label representation. We further discuss the integration of large language models (LLM) as annotators. Our work aims to lay a conceptual foundation for HLV-aware active learning, better reflecting the complexities of real-world annotation.
△ Less
Submitted 3 July, 2025;
originally announced July 2025.
Sources of Uncertainty in Supervised Machine Learning -- A Statisticians' View
Authors:
Cornelia Gruber,
Patrick Oliver Schenk,
Malte Schierholz,
Frauke Kreuter,
Göran Kauermann
Abstract:
Supervised machine learning and predictive models have achieved an impressive standard today, enabling us to answer questions that were inconceivable a few years ago. Besides these successes, it becomes clear, that beyond pure prediction, which is the primary strength of most supervised machine learning algorithms, the quantification of uncertainty is relevant and necessary as well. However, befor…
▽ More
Supervised machine learning and predictive models have achieved an impressive standard today, enabling us to answer questions that were inconceivable a few years ago. Besides these successes, it becomes clear, that beyond pure prediction, which is the primary strength of most supervised machine learning algorithms, the quantification of uncertainty is relevant and necessary as well. However, before quantification is possible, types and sources of uncertainty need to be defined precisely. While first concepts and ideas in this direction have emerged in recent years, this paper adopts a conceptual, basic science perspective and examines possible sources of uncertainty. By adopting the viewpoint of a statistician, we discuss the concepts of aleatoric and epistemic uncertainty, which are more commonly associated with machine learning. The paper aims to formalize the two types of uncertainty and demonstrates that sources of uncertainty are miscellaneous and can not always be decomposed into aleatoric and epistemic. Drawing parallels between statistical concepts and uncertainty in machine learning, we emphasise the role of data and their influence on uncertainty.
△ Less
Submitted 28 January, 2025; v1 submitted 26 May, 2023;
originally announced May 2023.
