Active Learning for Finding a Needle in a Haystack

arXiv:2610.15165v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Training a classifier to find a rare class of documents, such as hate speech directed at a particular religious group, requires labelled examples that are expensive to obtain when the class makes up only a small fraction of a corpus. Active learning reduces this cost, but it must start from an initial labelled set that contains examples of the target class. Random sampling cannot supply these at reasonable cost, so they must be selected in some other way, such as keyword search, and any such selection biases the initial set towards part of the target class. We evaluate whether active learning can correct this bias. On AG News and Measuring Hate Speech, at a prevalence of around 1%, we compare random sampling with eight active learning strategies, starting from initial sets that cover or omit known subgroups of the target class, and measure recall on the omitted subgroups as well as F1. On AG News, almost every strategy recovers the omitted subgroup. On Measuring Hate Speech, uncertainty-based strategies recover less of the omitted subgroups than random sampling, whereas discriminative active learning recovers 55% of them without a significant loss of F1. Aggregate metrics conceal these differences.

Abstract:Training a classifier to find a rare class of documents, such as hate speech directed at a particular religious group, requires labelled examples that are expensive to obtain when the class makes up only a small fraction of a corpus. Active learning reduces this cost, but it must start from an initial labelled set that contains examples of the target class. Random sampling cannot supply these at reasonable cost, so they must be selected in some other way, such as keyword search, and any such selection biases the initial set towards part of the target class. We evaluate whether active learning can correct this bias. On AG News and Measuring Hate Speech, at a prevalence of around 1%, we compare random sampling with eight active learning strategies, starting from initial sets that cover or omit known subgroups of the target class, and measure recall on the omitted subgroups as well as F1. On AG News, almost every strategy recovers the omitted subgroup. On Measuring Hate Speech, uncertainty-based strategies recover less of the omitted subgroups than random sampling, whereas discriminative active learning recovers 55% of them without a significant loss of F1. Aggregate metrics conceal these differences.

Computation and Language (cs.CL)

arXiv:2610.15165 [cs.CL]

(or arXiv:2610.15165v1 [cs.CL] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.15165 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

aiqbench analysis

Active Learning for Finding a Needle in a Haystack

Related coverage