PapersWithELO
← ICLR 2024 leaderboard

Improved Active Learning via Dependent Leverage Score Sampling

Atsushi Shimizu, Xiaoou Cheng, Christopher Musco, Jonathan Weare

general MLleverage score samplingactive learningpolynomial regressiondifferential equationspivotal sampling
90.10100
Fused
band ≈ ±16 pct pts (from σ = 0.32)
88.60100
Mimo
band ≈ ±21 pct pts (from σ = 0.42)
93.80100
DeepSeek
band ≈ ±24 pct pts (from σ = 0.47)

OpenReview ground truth

Accepted

TL;DR — Better active learning (in theory and practice) in the presence of adversarial noise via non-independent leverage score sampling.

Abstract

We show how to obtain improved active learning methods in the agnostic (adversarial noise) setting by combining marginal leverage score sampling with non-independent sampling strategies that promote spatial coverage. In particular, we propose an easily implemented method based on the \emph{pivotal sampling algorithm}, which we test on problems motivated by learning-based methods for parametric PDEs and uncertainty quantification. In comparison to independent sampling, our method reduces the number of samples needed to reach a given target accuracy by up to $50\%$. We support our findings with two theoretical results. First, we show that any non-independent leverage score sampling method that obeys a weak \emph{one-sided $\ell_{\infty}$ independence condition} (which includes pivotal sampling) can actively learn $d$ dimensional linear functions with $O(d\log d)$ samples, matching independent sampling. This result extends recent work on matrix Chernoff bounds under $\ell_{\infty}$ independence, and may be of interest for analyzing other sampling strategies beyond pivotal sampling. Second, we show that, for the important case of polynomial regression, our pivotal method obtains an improved bound of $O(d)$ samples.

Author context

Most prolific author: 1 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.

Battle history — 34 comparisons

Ranked above opponent in 61% of matchups.

Judge assessments

Mean overall score 0.0 ± 0.0 (n = 34)