PapersWithELO
← ICLR 2024 leaderboard

ASPEST: Bridging the Gap Between Active Learning and Selective Prediction

Jiefeng Chen, Jinsung Yoon, Sayna Ebrahimi, Sercan O Arik, Somesh Jha, Tomas Pfister

general MLselective predictionactive learningdistribution shifts
69.70100
Fused
band ≈ ±15 pct pts (from σ = 0.30)
67.50100
Mimo
band ≈ ±22 pct pts (from σ = 0.44)
68.50100
DeepSeek
band ≈ ±21 pct pts (from σ = 0.41)

OpenReview ground truth

Rejected

TL;DR — Propose a new learning paradigm called active selective prediction and a novel method ASPEST for this new learning paradigm.

Abstract

Selective prediction aims to learn a reliable model that abstains from making predictions when uncertain. These predictions can then be deferred to a humans for further evaluation. As an everlasting challenge for machine learning, in many real-world scenarios, the distribution of test data is different from the training data. This results in more inaccurate predictions, and often increased dependence on humans, which can be difficult and expensive. Active learning aims to lower the overall labeling effort, and hence human dependence, by querying the most informative examples. Selective prediction and active learning have been approached from different angles, with the connection between them missing. In this work, we introduce a new learning paradigm, *active selective prediction*, which aims to query more informative samples from the shifted target domain while increasing accuracy and coverage. For this new paradigm, we propose a simple yet effective approach, ASPEST, that utilizes ensembles of model snapshots with self-training with their aggregated outputs as pseudo labels. Extensive experiments on numerous image, text and structured datasets, which suffer from domain shifts, demonstrate that ASPEST can significantly outperform prior work on selective prediction and active learning (e.g. on the MNIST$\to$SVHN benchmark with the labeling budget of 100, ASPEST improves the AUACC metric from 79.36% to 88.84%) and achieves more optimal utilization of humans in the loop.

Author context

Most prolific author: 6 submissions (credibility 1.00).

No mass-submission penalty for this paper (authors within normal submission volume).

Aggregate statistics only — no individual author rankings.

Ranking trajectory

Percentile by tournament round — convergence indicates rating stability.

Judge assessments

Mean overall score 0.0 ± 0.0 (n = 34)