ALPBench: A Benchmark for Active Learning Pipelines on Tabular Data
Valentin Margraf, Marcel Wever, Sandra Gilhuber, Gabriel, Marques Tavares, Thomas Seidl, Eyke H\"ullermeier

TL;DR
ALPBench is a comprehensive benchmark suite designed to evaluate and compare active learning pipelines on tabular data, enabling standardized, reproducible assessments of various query strategies and learning algorithms.
Contribution
The paper introduces ALPBench, a standardized benchmark with extensive datasets and settings for evaluating active learning pipelines, addressing the lack of such benchmarks in the field.
Findings
Demonstrated broad compatibility of ALPBench with multiple algorithms and strategies.
Provided insights into the performance variations across different active learning configurations.
Enabled reproducible evaluation of active learning methods on real-world datasets.
Abstract
In settings where only a budgeted amount of labeled data can be afforded, active learning seeks to devise query strategies for selecting the most informative data points to be labeled, aiming to enhance learning algorithms' efficiency and performance. Numerous such query strategies have been proposed and compared in the active learning literature. However, the community still lacks standardized benchmarks for comparing the performance of different query strategies. This particularly holds for the combination of query strategies with different learning algorithms into active learning pipelines and examining the impact of the learning algorithm choice. To close this gap, we propose ALPBench, which facilitates the specification, execution, and performance monitoring of active learning pipelines. It has built-in measures to ensure evaluations are done reproducibly, saving exact dataset…
Peer Reviews
Decision·Submitted to ICLR 2025
The paper fills in a clear gap in today's landscape of active learning for tabular data. The work is reasonably original (for an evaluation framework), clearly presented, and with the potential of having a high-impact in standardizing empirical validations (while also making them apples-2-apples). The wide availability of ALPBench would greatly impact future AL evaluations: far too many of the newly submitted AL papers stop after an arbitrary nmb of queries, w/o any indication on whether or not
While the paper goes a long way towards standardizing the evaluation of active learners, it can be improved along tow main directions: 1. First of all, instead than the "[somewhat] dry analysis" of the aggregated results in Figures 2 & 3 (which are excellent, but could go into an APPENDIX as supporting evidence), the paper would greatly benefit from a illustrative, step-by-step example of how to use ALPBench in a real-world scenario. Assume that you have a novel tabular dataset NTD for which act
- s1. interesting aspect: looking systematically at different down-stream models. - s2. promised a pip installable python module that should be easy to use. - s3. well written.
- w1. there is not much innovation in this benchmark besides just scaling to more downstream models and more datasets. - w2. how the three active learning regimes (tab. 1) have been chosen is not discussed. - w3. it is not clearly demonstrated how this new benchmark now makes it easier to answer the three research questions asked. - w4. the maybe main question one would want to answer by looking at different down-stream models, namely should we use different active learning methods
S1: The authors proposed a benchmark to compare different active learning strategies for tabular classification tasks under various settings but in a consistent environment, which is important for performing fair comparisons across the research community. S2: The benchmark integrates various datasets to compose a comprehensive benchmark, which covers a variety of settings for evaluating active learning strategies
W1: The scope of this paper is quite narrow, only focusing on tabular classification and only a subset of active learning strategies. However, ICML usually focuses on more general areas including computer vision and NLP. Considering that active learning strategies have been broadly used in those areas, it would be better to take those settings and solutions from those areas into account W2: I think more learning algorithms should be included, such as the recently emerging transformer model for t
Code & Models
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsMachine Learning and Algorithms
