Provably Neural Active Learning Succeeds via Prioritizing Perplexing Samples

To answer the above questions, in this work, we delve into the feature learning dynamics of NAL algorithms. To start with, we draw inspiration from the data models in Zou et al. (2023a); Allen-Zhu and Li (2023); Lu et al. (2023) that consist of multiple task-related feature patches and noise patches with varying strengths and frequencies, similar to what is observed in real-world imbalanced datasets, and conjecture that successful NAL algorithms are able to ensure adequate learning of all types of task-related features.

In this spirit, we adopt a multi-view feature-noise data model that comprises two main components: i) easy-to-learn (i.e., strong $\&$ common) features or hard-to-learn (i.e., weak $\&$ rare) features, and ii) noise. In Figure 1, the easy-to-learn features are exemplified by the frontal male lions with brown fur in the first row, given their common and easily identifiable lion traits, while lions in all the other rows can be characterized as the hard-to-learn features since they exhibit distinctive poses, colors, ages, races, fur patterns, and even heterogeneity. Hard-to-learn features are less common in the dataset and correspond to weakly recognizable lion traits, compared to the easy-to-learn features.

Under our data model, we reformulate two representative NAL algorithms, i.e., Uncertainty Sampling and Diversity Sampling, in a pool-based setting, corresponding to two query criteria, respectively. Both are built upon a two-layer ReLU convolutional neural network, and trained by gradient descent. In accordance with the principle of each approach family (Takezoe et al., 2023), the proposed Uncertainty Sampling queries based on the lowest confidence (Lewis and Catlett, 1994), and Diversity Sampling queries based on the largest distance between feature representations of unlabeled samples in the pool and those of labeled data (Sener and Savarese, 2018).

Over our data and algorithm models, our theory sheds light on the benefits of the two primary query criteria in the NAL family. Surprisingly, our analysis unveils that the success of both criteria-based NAL stems from their inherent shared principle, leading to a unified view. Specifically, we make the following contributions in this work.

• •

  We offer valuable insights that from a feature learning view, the two query criteria-based NAL can be unified as one family. We provably show that the two query criteria-based NAL share the same working principle, i.e., prioritizing perplexing samples-samples with yet-to-be-learned features. Our analysis reveals that in our scenario, those yet-to-be-learned features are actually those weak $\&$ rare features.

• •

  We elucidate a marked disparity in the generalization capabilities between passive learning and NAL algorithms. Our analysis suggest that, both NAL algorithms can learn weak $\&$ rare features adequately via prioritizing perplexing samples, and thus achieve a small test error. Contrastingly, the strategy-free passive learning exhibits a large test error. The disparity can be intensified in some out-of-distribution cases. Our experimental study corroborates this finding.

• •

  We further uncover why and to what extent the two query criteria can alleviate labelling effort. The key lies in NAL’s ability to effectively query perplexing samples in the training distribution. But in contrast, we find that the strategy-free passive learning requires a significantly larger label complexity to adequately learn all types of features.

  \mdfsetup

  frametitle= Perplexing Samples , innertopmargin=-3pt, innerbottommargin=7pt, innerrightmargin=7pt, innerleftmargin=7pt, frametitleaboveskip=-frametitlealignment=, linewidth=1pt {mdframed} Samples in the sampling pool that possess yet-to-be-learned features. We prove that both Uncertainty Sampling and Diversity Sampling inherently strive to query them.

Neural Active Learning. Neural Network-based Active Learning (NAL) is one of the core data selection automation techniques in the field of Data-centric approaches for AutoML and Computer Version. As summarized in recent surveys (Zhan et al., 2021, 2022; Takezoe et al., 2023), there are two main query criteria: uncertainty-based, which chooses samples that the neural models feel most uncertain about (Seung et al., 1992; Lewis and Catlett, 1994; Roth and Small, 2006; Joshi et al., 2009; Houlsby et al., 2011; Cai et al., 2013; Yang and Loog, 2016; Kampffmeyer et al., 2016; Gal et al., 2017; Wang et al., 2022b; Kye et al., 2023; Duan et al., 2024; Cho et al., 2024) and diversity(representative)-based that selects samples that diverse from labeled set in the feature space (Stark et al., 2015; Du et al., 2015; Wang et al., 2016; Sener and Savarese, 2018; Gissin and Shalev-Shwartz, 2019; Sinha et al., 2019; Shui et al., 2020). Also, many works combine the two query criteria into the sampling (querying) strategy through weighted-sum optimization (Yin et al., 2017) or two-stage optimization (Ash et al., 2020; Zhdanov, 2019; Shui et al., 2020). In addition, to develop reliable algorithms, several design methods with theoretical guarantees, including theories such as VC bound (Balcan et al., 2006; Zhu and Nowak, 2022), Logistic Bound (Gu et al., 2014), Rademacher Complexity (Gu, 2014; Shui et al., 2020), and Neural Tangent Kernel (Wang et al., 2021; Mohamadi et al., 2022; Kong et al., 2022; Wang et al., 2022a; Wen et al., 2023). However, despite the development of numerous effective and theory-justified algorithms, the existing studies have not yet offered a comprehensive explanation for the underlying mechanisms of the two query criteria widely applied in NAL. Largely different from prior work, our work pioneeringly explore the theoretical aspect of the two criteria, via studying the feature learning dynamic in NAL algorithms.

Feature Learning in Learning Theory. Recent years witness an extensive body of research in learning theory on structured data from the perspective of feature learning (Li and Liang, 2018; Karp et al., 2021; Allen-Zhu and Li, 2023; Chen et al., 2022, 2023a, 2023b, 2023c, 2023d; Zou et al., 2023b; Li et al., 2023; Kou et al., 2023a, c; Huang et al., 2023a, c; Chidambaram et al., 2023; Deng et al., 2023). The essence of this line-of-research is to explicitly study the learning progress of features and memorization degree of noise under different data and algorithm scenarios, which serves as an intermediate proxy to examine the convergence of training and 0-1 loss. Specifically, Cao et al. (2022a) demonstrate the occurrence of benign overfitting in Convolutional Neural Network over linearly separable data under distinct conditions. Subsequently, Kou et al. (2023b) conduct similar results with ReLU activation, Meng et al. (2023) further derive results over XOR data, Zou et al. (2023a) reveal the benefits of Mixup training over linearly separable data with common and rare features, and Lu et al. (2023) explore the phenomenon of benign oscillation over linearly separable data with common $\&$ weak and rare $\&$ strong features. Our work extends the line of research by investigating the rationale behind the two primary criteria in NAL family, over both linearly and non-linearly separable data scenarios that include common $\&$ strong and rare $\&$ weak features. Our study focuses on characterizing the feature learning dynamics in NAL algorithms and providing a mathematical explanation for the benefits and inner relationship of the two primary query criteria of NAL.

In this study, our focus is on the pool-based selective sampling scenario, where the algorithms initially train the model using an initial labeled set and subsequently query a single batch of unlabeled samples from a large sampling pool. Then the algorithms would retrain the model again with fresh initialization. We denote the size of the initial labeled set as $n_{0}$, the querying (sampling) size for all querying algorithms as $n^{*}$ ($n^{*}=\Omega(n_{0})>n_{0}$), and the size of the labeled set after querying as $n_{1}=n_{0}+n^{*}$. We also define $\widetilde{n}$ as the maximum size of the labeled set after querying, such that $n_{1}\leq\widetilde{n}$. Moreover, we have the initial labeled set represented as $\mathcal{D}_{n_{0}}\mathrel{\mathop{:}}=\{\mathbf{x}^{(i)}\}_{i=1}^{n_{0}}$, and the sampling pool denoted as $\mathcal{P}$. Both of them are synthesized from the same data distribution $\mathcal{D}$, which is specified as follows.

This feature-noise data model captures the structure of an image, as depicted in Figure 1, by incorporating task-oriented distinctive patterns (features) and background patterns (noise) with different frequencies and strengths. Same as the patches setting in Zou et al. (2023a); Allen-Zhu and Li (2023); Lu et al. (2023), the weak feature patches are orthogonal to the strong feature patches in our setting, which is reasonable since the rare features appear largely different to the common ones. Worth noting that this type of data setting is common in the widely-recognized feature learning line-of-research (Allen-Zhu and Li, 2023; Cao et al., 2022a; Kou et al., 2023b; Zou et al., 2023a; Meng et al., 2023). Allen-Zhu and Li (2023) justify this type of data settings as plausible theoretical setups by highlighting the common occurrence of multiple one-task-oriented features in the latent space of Resnet, as shown in their Figure 2-4, 9. Furthermore, recent empirical and theoretical studies indicate the orthogonal nature of different features within the latent space of ViT and LLM (Yamagiwa et al., 2023; Jiang et al., 2024). To extend our contributions to more practical scenarios, we also conduct rigorous study and draw similar theoretical findings over a non-linearly separable, non-orthogonal data distribution - the XOR data defined in Definition C.2 - and obtained similar results.

Neural Setting. This work considers a two-layer ReLU CNN adopted in Kou et al. (2023b); Meng et al. (2023); Kou et al. (2023c); Chen et al. (2023d) as the base neural network for querying algorithms. The CNN function $f(\mathbf{W},\mathbf{x})$ is defined as $\sum_{j=\pm 1}j\cdot F_{j}(\mathbf{W},\mathbf{x})$, with $F_{j}(\mathbf{W},\mathbf{x})$ as

where the second layer is fixed as $\pm 1/m$, $m$ is the number of neurons, $\sigma(z)=\max\{z,0\}$ is ReLU function, $\mathbf{w}_{j,r}\in\mathbb{R}^{d}$ denotes the weights of the $r$-th neuron of $F_{j}$, $\mathbf{W}_{j}\in\mathbb{R}^{m\times d}$ collects the weights in $F_{j}$ and $\mathbf{W}$ collects all weights.

Training Setting. We utilize gradient descent to train the neural model. Denote $n$ as the size of current labeled training set, denoted as $\mathcal{D}=\left\{\left(\mathbf{x}^{(i)},y_{i}\right)\right\}_{i=1}^{n}$ generated from $\mathcal{D}$ over $\mathbf{x}\times y$. We apply the empirical logist loss:

where $\ell(z)=\log(1+\exp(-z))$. The gradient update of the filters in the first layer can be written as follows:

where $U^{l}=\{\mathbf{x}\in\mathcal{D}\mid\mathbf{x}_{\text{signal part }}=\bm{\mu}_{l}\}$ denote as the set of indices of $\mathcal{D}$ where the data’s feature patch is $\bm{\mu}_{l}$, ${\ell_{i}^{\prime}}^{(t)}$ denotes $\ell^{\prime}\left[y_{i}\cdot f(\mathbf{W}^{(t)},\mathbf{x}^{(i)})\right]$. The initial values of all elements in $\mathbf{W}^{(0)}$ are generated from independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.) Gaussian distributions with mean 0 and variance $\sigma_{0}^{2}$. The querying algorithms would have the neural models retrained after a single querying with the same model initialization.

Querying Setting. During the querying stage, all the querying algorithms select $n^{*}$ new unlabeled samples from $\mathcal{P}$, where the pool size $\lvert\mathcal{P}\rvert$ satisfies $\lvert\mathcal{P}\rvert=\Omega(p^{-1}\sigma_{p}^{4}d\|\bm{\mu}_{2}\|_{2}^{-4},p^{-1}\log(1/\delta))$²²2The choice on $\lvert\mathcal{P}\rvert$ is to ensure the sufficient presence of weak features in $\mathcal{P}$.. The three querying algorithms differentiate from each other by their own sampling rules as below:

• •

  Random Sampling (strategy-free passive learning) randomly selects $n^{*}$ new samples from $\mathcal{P}$.

• •

  Uncertainty Sampling (uncertainty-based NAL) selects top $n^{*}$ new samples from $\mathcal{P}$ based on the lowest Confidence Score at time step $t$. The Confidence Score $C\left(\mathbf{W},\mathbf{x}\right)$ measures the model’s confidence in predicting the label of sample $\mathbf{x}$, defined as below:

  $$\begin{split}C\left(\mathbf{W},\mathbf{x}\right)&=\max\Big{\{}\frac{1}{1+\exp(-y\cdot f(\mathbf{W},\mathbf{x}))},\\ &\phantom{=}1-\frac{1}{1+\exp(-y\cdot f(\mathbf{W},\mathbf{x}))}\Big{\}},\end{split}$$

  which represents the probability of the predicted label $y$ of logistic loss. In our scenario, the proposed Uncertainty Sampling is actually equivalent to many well-known uncertainty-based approaches such as Least Confidence (Lewis and Catlett, 1994), Margin Roth and Small (2006), and Entropy methods (Joshi et al., 2009), as discussed in Lemma F.5 in Appendix F.2.

• •

  Diversity Sampling (diversity-based NAL) selects the top $n^{*}$ new samples from $\mathcal{P}$ based on the highest Feature Distance at time step $t$. The Feature Distance $D\left(\mathbf{W},\mathbf{x}\ \mid\mathcal{D}_{n_{0}}\right)$ measures the $l_{p}$ distance between sample $\mathbf{x}$ and $\mathcal{D}_{n_{0}}$ in feature space, specified as:

  $$D(\mathbf{W},\mathbf{x}\ |\mathcal{D}_{n_{0}})=\|\mathbf{Z}(\mathbf{x},t)-\displaystyle\underset{\mathbf{x}^{(i)}\in\mathcal{D}_{n_{0}}}{\mathbb{E}}\mathbf{Z}(\mathbf{x}^{(i)},t)\|_{p},$$

  where the $\mathbf{Z}(\mathbf{x},t)$ is defined as the sum of feature maps in the feature space of CNN:

  $$\mathbf{Z}(\mathbf{x},t)=\sum_{j}(\sigma(\langle\mathbf{W}_{j}^{(t)},\mathbf{x}_{1}\rangle))+\sigma(\langle\mathbf{W}_{j}^{(t)},\mathbf{x}_{2}\rangle)).$$

  Specifically, Lemma 4.2 reveals that in our scenario, the proposed Diversity Sampling is equivalent for all values of $p$ within the range of $[1,\infty)$. This implies that our metric can be various distance measure, including Euclidean, Manhattan, or Minkowski distance.

The newly acquired samples are provided to an oracle to obtain their ground truth labels, which are then added to the training set. The whole procedure of the three querying algorithms are shown in Algorithm 1.

Testing Setting. The model performances at initial stage (before querying) and stage after querying are all measured by test error on a test distribution $\mathcal{D}^{*}$:

It is important to note that $\mathcal{D}^{*}$ shares the same definition as stated in Definition 1. However, it can have any occurrence probability of the weak feature, denoted as $p^{*}$, without the limitation of $p^{*}<0.5$ compared to the training distribution. Also, the test loss is defined as :

Leverage the inductive techniques adopted in many works (Cao et al., 2022a; Kou et al., 2023b; Meng et al., 2023; Kou et al., 2023c; Chen et al., 2023d), we can in our case study the coefficient scales.