Label-Efficient Active Learning on Clinical-Style Tabular Data: Uncertainty, Margin, and Committee Strategies Across Imbalance and Noise Regimes

Authors

  • Mahmoud Alimoradi * Department of Computer Engineering and Information Technology, La.C., Islamic Azad University, Iran. https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6167-439X
  • Awaz Ahmed Shaban Department of Information Technology, Technical College of Informatics–Akre, Akre University for Applied Sciences, Duhok, Iraq.
  • Isametova Madina Esdauletova Satbayev University, 050000 Almaty, Kazakhstan.

https://doi.org/10.22105/scfa.v3i2.102

Abstract

This study compares uncertainty, margin, entropy and Query-by-Committee (QbC) acquisition with random sampling on the Wisconsin Diagnostic Breast Cancer dataset and two derived stress regimes. The reported design uses thirty seeds, three learners, twenty initial labels and batches of ten up to 150 labels. The retained summaries report favorable Area-Under-Learning-Curve (AULC) differences in all 36 strategy-regime-learner cells and Holm-adjusted paired Wilcoxon p-values at most 0.0039. Under the noisy regime, logistic-regression AULC is reported as 0.9587 for random and 0.9837 for uncertainty; the corresponding mean retrospective threshold budgets are 32.0 and 24.7 labels, approximately 23% lower. QbC has the largest reported mean AULC gain under imbalance for each learner. Favorable cell medians coexist with individual seeds below random sampling. AULC integration, binary-score tie handling, ANOVA units and execution provenance require original code and outputs to validate these comparisons. The conclusions concern one retrospective benchmark with controlled fixed-count label corruption, rather than clinical annotation policies or a general benefit of noisy labels.

Keywords:

Active learning, Label efficiency, Class imbalance, Label noise, Query-by-committee, Clinical tabular data

References

  1. [1] Settles, B. (2009). Active learning literature survey. https://burrsettles.com/pub/settles.activelearning.pdf
  2. [2] Lewis, D. D. (1995). A sequential algorithm for training text classifiers: corrigendum and additional data. ACM sigir forum (Vol. 29, pp. 13–19). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-2099-5_1
  3. [3] Seung, H. S., Opper, M., & Sompolinsky, H. (1992). Query by committee. Proceedings of the fifth annual workshop on computational learning theory (pp. 287–294). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/130385.130417
  4. [4] Wolberg, W., Mangasarian, O., Street, N., & Street, W. (1993). Breast cancer wisconsin (diagnostic). https://doi.org/10.24432/C5DW2B
  5. [5] Tong, S., & Koller, D. (2001). Support vector machine active learning with applications to text classification. Journal of machine learning research, 2(11), 45–66. https://jmlr.org/papers/v2/tong01a.html
  6. [6] Freund, Y., Seung, H. S., Shamir, E., & Tishby, N. (1997). Selective sampling using the query by committee algorithm. Machine learning, 28(2), 133–168. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007330508534
  7. [7] McCallum, A. K., & Nigam, K. (1998). Employing em and pool-based active learning for text classification. ICML (Vol. 98, pp. 350–358). UMass Amheret. https://people.cs.umass.edu/~mccallum/papers/active-em-icml98.pdf
  8. [8] Dasgupta, S., & Hsu, D. (2008). Hierarchical sampling for active learning. Proceedings of the 25th international conference on machine learning (pp. 208–215). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/1390156.1390183
  9. [9] Breiman, L. (2001). Random forests. Machine learning, 45(1), 5–32. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010933404324
  10. [10] Friedman, J. H. (2001). Greedy function approximation: a gradient boosting machine. Annals of statistics, 29(5), 1189–1232. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2699986
  11. [11] Pedregosa, F., Varoquaux, G., Gramfort, A., Michel, V., Thirion, B., & Grisel, O. (2011). Scikit-learn: Machine learning in Python. The journal of machine learning research, 12, 2825–2830. https://jmlr.org/papers/v12/pedregosa11a.html
  12. [12] Wilcoxon, F. (1945). Individual comparisons by ranking methods. Biometrics bulletin, 1(6), 80–83. https://doi.org/10.2307/3001968
  13. [13] Holm, S. (1979). A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure. Scandinavian journal of statistics, 6(2), 65–70. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4615733
  14. [14] Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., Van Der Walt, S. J., Gommers, R., Virtanen, P., & Cournapeau, D. (2020). Array programming with NumPy. Nature, 585(7825), 357–362. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2
  15. [15] Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., Haberland, M., Reddy, T., & Cournapeau, D. (2020). SciPy 1.0: Fundamental algorithms for scientific computing in Python. Nature methods, 17(3), 261–272. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2
  16. [16] Seabold, S., & Perktold, J. (2010). Statsmodels: econometric and statistical modeling with python. Scipy, 7(1), 92–96. https://doi.org/10.25080/Majora-92bf1922-011
  17. [17] Hunter, J. D. (2007). Matplotlib: A 2D graphics environment. Computing in science & engineering, 9(3), 90–95. https://doi.org/10.1109/MCSE.2007.55

Published

2026-06-07

Issue

Vol. 3 No. 2 (2026): Soft Computing Fusion with Applications (SCFA)

Section

Articles

How to Cite

Alimoradi, M. ., Ahmed Shaban, A. ., & Madina Esdauletova, I. . (2026). Label-Efficient Active Learning on Clinical-Style Tabular Data: Uncertainty, Margin, and Committee Strategies Across Imbalance and Noise Regimes. Soft Computing Fusion With Applications , 3(2), 87-98. https://doi.org/10.22105/scfa.v3i2.102

Similar Articles

1-10 of 40

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.