-
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.
-
Specialists Outperform Generalists in Ensemble Classification
Authors:
Sascha Meyen,
Frieder Göppert,
Helen Alber,
Ulrike von Luxburg,
Volker H. Franz
Abstract:
Consider an ensemble of $k$ individual classifiers whose accuracies are known. Upon receiving a test point, each of the classifiers outputs a predicted label and a confidence in its prediction for this particular test point. In this paper, we address the question of whether we can determine the accuracy of the ensemble. Surprisingly, even when classifiers are combined in the statistically optimal…
▽ More
Consider an ensemble of $k$ individual classifiers whose accuracies are known. Upon receiving a test point, each of the classifiers outputs a predicted label and a confidence in its prediction for this particular test point. In this paper, we address the question of whether we can determine the accuracy of the ensemble. Surprisingly, even when classifiers are combined in the statistically optimal way in this setting, the accuracy of the resulting ensemble classifier cannot be computed from the accuracies of the individual classifiers-as would be the case in the standard setting of confidence weighted majority voting. We prove tight upper and lower bounds on the ensemble accuracy. We explicitly construct the individual classifiers that attain the upper and lower bounds: specialists and generalists. Our theoretical results have very practical consequences: (1) If we use ensemble methods and have the choice to construct our individual (independent) classifiers from scratch, then we should aim for specialist classifiers rather than generalists. (2) Our bounds can be used to determine how many classifiers are at least required to achieve a desired ensemble accuracy. Finally, we improve our bounds by considering the mutual information between the true label and the individual classifier's output.
△ Less
Submitted 9 July, 2021;
originally announced July 2021.
-
Risk prediction models for discrete ordinal outcomes: calibration and the impact of the proportional odds assumption
Authors:
Michael Edlinger,
Maarten van Smeden,
Hannes F Alber,
Maria Wanitschek,
Ben Van Calster
Abstract:
Calibration is a vital aspect of the performance of risk prediction models, but research in the context of ordinal outcomes is scarce. This study compared calibration measures for risk models predicting a discrete ordinal outcome, and investigated the impact of the proportional odds assumption on calibration and overfitting. We studied the multinomial, cumulative, adjacent category, continuation r…
▽ More
Calibration is a vital aspect of the performance of risk prediction models, but research in the context of ordinal outcomes is scarce. This study compared calibration measures for risk models predicting a discrete ordinal outcome, and investigated the impact of the proportional odds assumption on calibration and overfitting. We studied the multinomial, cumulative, adjacent category, continuation ratio, and stereotype logit/logistic models. To assess calibration, we investigated calibration intercepts and slopes, calibration plots, and the estimated calibration index. Using large sample simulations, we studied the performance of models for risk estimation under various conditions, assuming that the true model has either a multinomial logistic form or a cumulative logit proportional odds form. Small sample simulations were used to compare the tendency for overfitting between models. As a case study, we developed models to diagnose the degree of coronary artery disease (five categories) in symptomatic patients. When the true model was multinomial logistic, proportional odds models often yielded poor risk estimates, with calibration slopes deviating considerably from unity even on large model development datasets. The stereotype logistic model improved the calibration slope, but still provided biased risk estimates for individual patients. When the true model had a cumulative logit proportional odds form, multinomial logistic regression provided biased risk estimates, although these biases were modest. Non-proportional odds models require more parameters to be estimated from the data, and hence suffered more from overfitting. Despite larger sample size requirements, we generally recommend multinomial logistic regression for risk prediction modeling of discrete ordinal outcomes.
△ Less
Submitted 18 November, 2021; v1 submitted 19 April, 2021;
originally announced April 2021.
