Skip to content
aiqbench takeAI Research

aiqbench analysis

This research challenges the core assumptions of active learning in low-data regimes, revealing that sample ordering and pre-training interactions outweigh traditional metrics like informativeness or diversity. The findings suggest a necessary shift in algorithm design for few-shot translation tasks to account for these overlooked factors rather than relying on standard selection strategies.
Sources coveringarXiv, LessWrong, Slack Blog, InfoQ
What this isA model's reading of the article and related coverage, written for aiqbench. Not the publisher's words.

Testing the Assumptions of Active Learning for Translation Tasks with Few Samples

arXiv2 min read

arXiv:2604.08977v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Active learning (AL) is a training paradigm for selecting unlabeled samples for annotation to improve model performance on a test set, which is useful when only a limited number of samples can be annotated. These algorithms often work by optimizing for the informativeness and diversity of the training data to be annotated. Recent work found that AL strategies fail to outperform random sampling on various language generation tasks when using 100-500 samples. To understand AL's poor performance when only using few samples, we investigate whether the core assumptions underlying AL strategies hold. We find that neither the informativeness nor diversity of the training data, which AL strategies optimize for, are correlated with test set performance. Instead, factors like the ordering of the training samples and interactions with pre-training data have a larger impact on performance. This suggests that future AL methods must take these factors into account in order to work with very few samples.

Abstract:Active learning (AL) is a training paradigm for selecting unlabeled samples for annotation to improve model performance on a test set, which is useful when only a limited number of samples can be annotated. These algorithms often work by optimizing for the informativeness and diversity of the training data to be annotated. Recent work found that AL strategies fail to outperform random sampling on various language generation tasks when using 100-500 samples. To understand AL's poor performance when only using few samples, we investigate whether the core assumptions underlying AL strategies hold. We find that neither the informativeness nor diversity of the training data, which AL strategies optimize for, are correlated with test set performance. Instead, factors like the ordering of the training samples and interactions with pre-training data have a larger impact on performance. This suggests that future AL methods must take these factors into account in order to work with very few samples.

Computation and Language (cs.CL)

arXiv:2604.08977 [cs.CL]

(or arXiv:2604.08977v2 [cs.CL] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2604.08977 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite

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.

Full text under the publisher's open licence · 248 words

Related coverage