Skip to content

Select, Label, Evaluate: Active Testing in NLP

Mar 2026 · arXiv.org · Vol abs/2603.21840 · 1 citation · 25 references
Computer Science

TL;DR

This work formalizes Active Testing in NLP and conducts an extensive benchmarking of existing approaches across 18 datasets and 4 embedding strategies spanning 4 different NLP tasks, revealing variations in method effectiveness across different data characteristics and task types.

Abstract

Human annotation cost and time remain significant bottlenecks in Natural Language Processing (NLP), with test data annotation being particularly expensive due to the stringent requirement for low-error and high-quality labels necessary for reliable model evaluation. Traditional approaches require annotating entire test sets, leading to substantial resource requirements. Active Testing is a framework that selects the most informative test samples for annotation. Given a labeling budget, it aims to choose the subset that best estimates model performance while minimizing cost and human effort. In this work, we formalize Active Testing in NLP and we conduct an extensive benchmarking of existing approaches across 18 datasets and 4 embedding strategies spanning 4 different NLP tasks. The experiments show annotation reductions of up to 95%, with performance estimation accuracy difference from the full test set within 1%. Our analysis reveals variations in method effectiveness across different data characteristics and task types, with no single approach emerging as universally superior. Lastly, to address the limitation of requiring a predefined annotation budget in existing sample selection strategies, we introduce an adaptive stopping criterion that automatically determines the optimal number of samples. We release our code at https://github.com/amazon-science/NLPActiveTesting.

View source

Similar papers

#natural language process... Preprint Aug 2026

QUORUM: QUality-Optimized Routing Using Multiple annotators

This work introduces QUORUM (QUality-Optimized Routing Using Multiple annotators), a budget-aware routing framework that dynamically assigns each instance to human or LLM annotators under a fixed annotation budget and supports multiple annotations per instance, combining them through agreement-based rewards to improve...

Antonio Purificato, Maria Sofia Bucarelli, Andrea Bacciu et al. · 1 citation
Preprint Sep 2026

Object Detection Benchmarks are Incomplete: The Role of Label Errors and Annotation Uncertainty

This work introduces a scalable annotation pipeline that emphasizes high recall and captures ambiguity through soft labels aggregated from at least 11 annotators per object, and shows that benchmark performance is highly sensitive to annotation quality, although model rankings remain largely stable.

Sarina Penquitt, Jonathan Klees, Antonia van Betteray et al. · 0 citations
#natural language process... Preprint Aug 2026

Which Metrics Save the Most Human Annotation? Prediction-Powered Evaluation and Meta-Evaluation

This work proposes prediction-powered evaluation, a framework that combines limited human judgments with large-scale automatic scores to obtain data-efficient system comparisons that are provably unbiased, and introduces the Prediction-Powered Saving Ratio (PPSR), a meta-metric that measures how much human annotation a...

Mingqi Gao, Anthony B. Sicilia, Weiye Shi · 1 citation
Preprint Aug 2026

Loss-Based Active Learning for Neural Abstractive Summarization

This work proposes LOBSTER, a novel active learning framework designed specifically for abstractive summarization that improves performance by prioritizing unlabeled instances semantically similar to the model's current high-loss training examples, enabling the model to explicitly correct its specific weaknesses.

M. Ioannou, Tatiana Passali, George Michalopoulos et al. · 0 citations
#natural language process... Preprint Sep 2026

Does task decomposition improve automatic NLG evaluation?

This work systematically compares LLMaJ methods with and without decomposition on multiple NLG datasets and finds that, when human labels are available, LLMaJ without using task decomposition can perform comparably to human annotators.

Sebastian Steindl, Nikos Voskarides, Alberto Gasparin et al. · 0 citations

Related blog posts

We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads. See our Cookie Policy.