Active Learning Query Strategies: A Performance Comparison for Accelerating Drug Discovery

Abstract

This article provides a comprehensive performance comparison of active learning (AL) query strategies, tailored for researchers and professionals in drug development. With the high cost and time burdens of traditional drug discovery, AL offers a data-efficient machine learning approach to intelligently select the most informative experiments. We explore foundational principles, detail methodological applications in preclinical screening and synergistic combination discovery, and address key optimization challenges. The content synthesizes recent benchmark studies to validate strategy performance, offering actionable insights for implementing AL to reduce labeling costs, improve prediction model accuracy, and accelerate the identification of effective treatments.

What are Active Learning Query Strategies? Core Principles for Data-Efficient Science

Active learning represents a fundamental shift in machine learning, moving from static, data-hungry models to dynamic, data-efficient systems that intelligently select the most valuable information to learn from. This approach is particularly transformative for fields like drug discovery and materials science, where data acquisition is costly and time-consuming. This guide objectively compares the performance of various active learning query strategies, providing researchers with experimental data and methodologies to inform their experimental design.

Active Learning: Core Concepts and Workflow

What is Active Learning?

Active learning is a supervised machine learning approach that strategically selects the most informative data points for labeling to optimize the learning process [1]. Unlike passive learning, where a model is trained on a fixed, pre-defined dataset, active learning algorithms actively query a human annotator or experimental setup to label the most valuable instances from a pool of unlabeled data [1] [2]. The primary objective is to minimize the amount of labeled data required for training while maximizing the model's performance, thereby significantly reducing the time and cost associated with data annotation and experimentation [1] [3].

The Active Learning Workflow

The active learning process operates through an iterative, feedback-driven cycle. The foundational steps are consistent across domains, whether in educational settings or scientific discovery, and can be visualized as follows:

This workflow is implemented across various fields:

• In drug discovery, the cycle involves using a small set of known compound-target interactions to train a model, which then selects the most promising uncharacterized compounds from a vast virtual library for synthesis and testing [3].
• In educational settings, an instructor might pose a question (query), students think and discuss (labeling their own understanding), and the instructor uses their responses to refine the next teaching intervention (model update) [4] [5].

Active Learning vs. Passive Learning: A Performance Comparison

The distinction between active and passive learning is critical for understanding performance gains. The following table summarizes key differences in their approaches and outcomes.

Feature	Passive Learning	Active Learning
Learning Paradigm	Teacher-centered [2] [6]	Student/Model-centered [2] [6]
Data Selection	Relies on random or pre-defined datasets [1]	Strategically queries informative samples [1]
Cost & Efficiency	High labeling cost; slower convergence [1]	Reduced labeling cost; faster convergence [1]
Model Performance	Requires large data volumes for high accuracy [1]	Achieves high accuracy with less data [1] [7]
Adaptability	Low adaptability to dynamic datasets [1]	Highly adaptable and robust to data changes [1]

Quantitative data underscores these comparative advantages. In educational contexts, students in active learning environments are 1.5 times less likely to fail and show a 54% higher test score improvement compared to those in traditional, passive lectures [8]. A materials science benchmark demonstrated that active learning could achieve performance parity with full-data baselines while using only 10-30% of the data pool, equivalent to a 70-95% savings in computational or labeling resources [7].

A Closer Look: Query Strategies and Their Experimental Performance

The "query strategy" is the intelligent core of any active learning system, determining which data points are selected for labeling. Different strategies are designed to achieve specific objectives, such as reducing model uncertainty or exploring diverse areas of the data space.

Comparative Performance of Query Strategies

Recent benchmark studies provide rigorous, quantitative comparisons of various query strategies. The table below synthesizes key findings from a comprehensive evaluation of 17 active learning strategies within an Automated Machine Learning (AutoML) framework for regression tasks in materials science [7].

Query Strategy Type	Key Principle	Relative Performance & Experimental Findings
Uncertainty-Based	Selects data points where the model's prediction is most uncertain [1] [7].	LCMD and Tree-based-R outperformed random sampling and geometry-based methods early in the learning process when data was scarce [7].
Diversity-Based	Selects data points that are most dissimilar to already labeled instances, ensuring broad coverage [1].	Pure diversity methods (GSx, EGAL) were initially less effective than uncertainty-driven methods in the early acquisition phase [7].
Hybrid (Uncertainty + Diversity)	Combines uncertainty and diversity criteria to balance exploration and exploitation [7].	RD-GS, a hybrid strategy, clearly outperformed geometry-only heuristics early on, showing the benefit of combining multiple selection principles [7].
Multi-Objective (Pareto Active Learning)	Optimizes for multiple, often competing, objectives simultaneously [9].	In heat treatment optimization for steel, the Upper Confidence Bound (UCB) query strategy produced a superior Pareto front with 93.8% and 88.5% predictive accuracy for strength and ductility, outperforming Expected Improvement and Greedy Search [9].

A key insight from the benchmark was that the performance gap between sophisticated strategies and random sampling narrows as the labeled dataset grows, indicating diminishing returns and a convergence in model performance once a sufficient amount of data is acquired [7].

Experimental Protocols: Benchmarking in Practice

To ensure the reproducibility and rigorous evaluation of active learning strategies, researchers employ standardized experimental protocols. The following methodologies are adapted from recent high-impact studies.

Methodology 1: Comprehensive Benchmarking with AutoML

This protocol, used to generate the comparative data in the previous section, is designed for rigorous, large-scale comparison of multiple query strategies [7].

• Data Preparation: Partition a fully labeled dataset into an initial small labeled set L (e.g., 5-10% of data) and a large unlabeled pool U. A separate test set is held out for final evaluation.
• Initialization: Randomly sample n_init data points from U to form the initial labeled training set.
• Active Learning Cycle:
  • Model Training & Optimization: An AutoML system is used to automatically select and hyperparameter-tune the best machine learning model from various families (e.g., linear models, tree-based ensembles, neural networks) using L. Validation is typically done via 5-fold cross-validation [7].
  • Querying: Each candidate AL strategy selects the most informative batch of samples from U based on its specific principle (e.g., uncertainty, diversity).
  • "Labeling": In a benchmark, the true labels for the selected samples are retrieved from the pre-existing dataset.
  • Update: The newly labeled samples are added to L and removed from U.
• Performance Measurement: The performance of the AutoML model is evaluated on the held-out test set after each iteration. Key metrics include Mean Absolute Error (MAE) and the Coefficient of Determination (R²) [7].
• Iteration and Analysis: The cycle repeats for a pre-defined number of steps or until a performance plateau is reached. The learning curves of different strategies are compared to assess data efficiency.

Methodology 2: PAL for Multi-Objective Optimization

This protocol is specific to multi-objective problems, such as optimizing drug candidates or material compositions for multiple properties [9].

• Problem Formulation: Define the multiple objectives to be optimized (e.g., maximizing drug efficacy while minimizing toxicity).
• Model Initialization: Train an initial surrogate model (e.g., a probabilistic regressor) on a small set of labeled data.
• Pareto Front Identification: The model identifies a set of non-dominated solutions (the Pareto front), representing optimal trade-offs between the objectives.
• Multi-Objective Querying: A multi-objective query strategy (e.g., Expected Improvement, Upper Confidence Bound) is used to select the most promising data point from the unlabeled pool. The choice balances improving the model's accuracy and improving the Pareto front itself.
• Experimental Validation: The selected candidate is synthesized and tested in a real-world experiment (e.g., a biochemical assay).
• Model Update: The new experimental results are added to the training data, and the surrogate model is retrained.
• Validation and Analysis: The final Pareto front is validated experimentally. The efficiency of the process is measured by the number of experimental cycles required to discover high-performing candidates and the accuracy of the final model's predictions [9].

Application in Drug Discovery: A Detailed Workflow

Active learning is increasingly critical in drug discovery, where it addresses challenges like vast chemical spaces and limited labeled data [3]. The following diagram and table detail its application and the essential "research reagents" involved.

Research Reagent Solutions in Drug Discovery AL

The following table lists key computational and experimental resources that form the essential toolkit for implementing active learning in a drug discovery pipeline.

Research Reagent / Tool	Function in Active Learning Workflow
Virtual Compound Libraries	Large databases of unlabeled chemical structures (e.g., ZINC) serve as the initial unlabeled pool U from which AL selects candidates for further investigation [3].
High-Throughput Screening (HTS) Assays	Automated experimental platforms that provide the "labeling" function, generating bioactivity data (e.g., IC₅₀) for compounds selected by the query strategy [3].
Automated Synthesis & Screening	Integrated robotic systems that physically execute the "labeling" step by synthesizing and testing proposed compounds, closing the loop in a fully automated discovery platform [3].
Surrogate Machine Learning Models	Predictive models (e.g., Random Forests, Bayesian Neural Networks) that act as the learner, predicting molecular properties and quantifying uncertainty to guide the query strategy [3] [7].
Query Strategy Algorithms	The software implementations of strategies like Uncertainty Sampling or Expected Improvement that define the data selection logic, determining the next experiments to run [1] [9].

The transition from passive learning to intelligent data acquisition represents a paradigm shift in how machine learning is applied to complex scientific problems. Empirical evidence demonstrates that active learning consistently outperforms passive approaches, achieving superior model accuracy with dramatically less data. Among query strategies, uncertainty-based and hybrid methods show particular strength in data-scarce regimes, while multi-objective strategies like UCB-based Pareto Active Learning effectively navigate complex trade-offs. For researchers in drug development and materials science, integrating these data-efficient strategies into their workflows, supported by the detailed experimental protocols and tools outlined here, promises to significantly accelerate the pace of discovery and innovation.

In the field of machine learning, particularly within data-intensive sectors like drug discovery, active learning (AL) has emerged as a pivotal technique for optimizing the data annotation process. The core premise of active learning is to minimize labeling costs and computational resources by intelligently selecting the most informative data points from a large unlabeled pool, thereby maximizing model performance with minimal labeled data. For researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals, understanding the nuances of different AL query strategies is crucial for building efficient and robust predictive models in environments where data labeling is expensive and time-consuming, such as in preclinical drug candidate screening and materials informatics [1] [7].

Active learning strategies are broadly categorized into three core principles based on their sample selection approach: Uncertainty Sampling, Diversity Sampling, and Hybrid Strategies that combine both. This guide provides a performance comparison of these strategies, grounded in recent benchmark studies, and details their experimental protocols, enabling informed selection for specific research applications, especially in resource-constrained settings.

Core Principles and Comparative Performance

The table below summarizes the fundamental principles, common techniques, and key performance characteristics of the three core AL strategy types.

Table 1: Comparison of Core Active Learning Query Strategies

Strategy Type	Core Principle	Representative Techniques	Key Advantages	Common Limitations
Uncertainty Sampling	Selects data points where the model's prediction is least confident [1].	Entropy Sampling [10]; Bayesian Active Summarization (BAS) using BLEUVar [11]; Monte Carlo Dropout [7].	High data efficiency early in the learning cycle [7]; Simple to implement.	Can select outliers; prone to noise; may lack diversity [11].
Diversity Sampling	Selects data that broadly represents the structure of the unlabeled pool [1].	In-Domain Diversity Sampling (IDDS) [11]; Geometry-only heuristics (GSx, EGAL) [7].	Ensures broad coverage of the data distribution; reduces redundancy.	May select many easy, non-informative samples; ignores model state [11].
Hybrid Strategies	Combines uncertainty and diversity to select informative and representative samples [11].	DUAL (Diversity and Uncertainty AL) [11]; RD-GS [7]; LCMD, Tree-based-R [7].	Mitigates weaknesses of individual strategies; more robust performance [11] [7].	More computationally complex; requires balancing of objectives.

Quantitative Performance Benchmarking

Recent large-scale benchmarks provide quantitative insights into the real-world performance of these strategies. A comprehensive study in materials science, which shares data-scarcity challenges with drug discovery, evaluated 17 AL strategies on regression tasks within an Automated Machine Learning (AutoML) framework [12] [7]. The findings are highly instructive:

• Early Acquisition Phase: In data-scarce conditions, uncertainty-driven methods (LCMD, Tree-based-R) and hybrid strategies (RD-GS) clearly outperformed geometry-only diversity heuristics (GSx, EGAL) and random sampling [7]. This highlights their superior ability to select informative samples when the labeled dataset is small.
• Performance Convergence: As the size of the labeled set grows, the performance gap between different strategies narrows, indicating diminishing returns for advanced AL strategies under AutoML once sufficient data is acquired [7].
• Reality Check for Deep Learning: A separate benchmark for deep learning classification tasks delivered a surprising result: the simplest uncertainty method, entropy sampling, outperformed all other single-model methods in 72.5% of acquisition steps across four datasets. Some proposed state-of-the-art methods even failed to consistently beat random sampling [10].

Table 2: Key Quantitative Findings from Recent Benchmarks

Benchmark Focus	Top Performing Strategies	Key Quantitative Finding	Context
Materials Science Regression with AutoML [7]	LCMD, Tree-based-R (Uncertainty), RD-GS (Hybrid)	Outperformed other methods and random sampling significantly in early acquisition stages.	9 materials datasets; small-sample regime.
Deep Learning Classification [10]	Entropy Sampling (Uncertainty)	Outperformed all other single-model methods in 72.5% of acquisition steps.	CIFAR-10, CIFAR-100, Caltech-101, Caltech-256.
Text Summarization [11]	DUAL (Hybrid)	Consistently matched or outperformed the best individual uncertainty (BAS) or diversity (IDDS) strategies.	Multiple benchmark datasets and summarization models (e.g., BART, PEGASUS).

Detailed Experimental Protocols

To ensure reproducibility and provide a clear framework for researchers, this section details the experimental methodologies common to rigorous AL evaluations.

General Active Learning Workflow

The following diagram illustrates the standard iterative workflow for pool-based active learning, common to the benchmarks discussed.

Diagram 1: Generic Active Learning Workflow

Benchmarking Methodology for Strategy Comparison

The protocol below is synthesized from the comprehensive benchmarks in materials science [7] and deep learning [10].

• Data Partitioning and Initialization:

  • The full dataset is split into an initial training set (e.g., 80%) and a hold-out test set (e.g., 20%) [7].
  • From the training portion, a small number of samples (n_init) are randomly selected to form the initial labeled set L. The remainder constitutes the unlabeled pool U [7].

• Model and AutoML Configuration:

  • In the AutoML benchmark, an Automated Machine Learning framework is used to automatically select the best model and hyperparameters at each AL cycle using cross-validation (e.g., 5-fold) on the current L [7].
  • In the deep learning benchmark, a fixed neural network architecture (e.g., ResNet) is used, with careful control of hyperparameters and training protocols across all compared methods to ensure a fair comparison [10].

• Active Learning Cycle:

  • Model Training & Evaluation: The model (or AutoML pipeline) is trained on L and evaluated on the fixed test set. Performance metrics (e.g., MAE, R² for regression; accuracy for classification) are recorded [7].
  • Query Execution: Each AL strategy in the benchmark selects a batch of samples (e.g., b samples) from U based on its specific principle (uncertainty, diversity, or hybrid) [7] [10].
  • "Oracle" Annotation: The selected samples are considered "labeled" by an oracle (in simulation, their ground-truth labels are revealed from the held-out data) [7].
  • Set Update: The newly labeled samples are added to L and removed from U [7].

• Iteration and Analysis:

  • Steps 3a-3d are repeated for multiple cycles, progressively expanding L.
  • Performance is plotted against the number of labeled samples or the iteration number. The effectiveness of a strategy is measured by how quickly and highly its performance curve rises compared to others and to random sampling [7] [10].

Detailed Protocol: The DUAL Strategy for Summarization

The DUAL algorithm provides a concrete example of a hybrid strategy's implementation [11].

• Input: Labeled set L, Unlabeled pool U, batch size B, summarization model.
• Uncertainty Estimation: For each document in U, use Bayesian Active Summarization (BAS) to compute its uncertainty score (BLEUVar). This involves generating N summaries with MC Dropout and calculating the variance of BLEU scores among them [11].
• Diversity Estimation: For each document in U, compute its In-Domain Diversity Sampling (IDDS) score. This measures its average similarity to the unlabeled pool minus its average similarity to the labeled set, using document embeddings [11].
• Score Combination: For each document, combine the normalized uncertainty and diversity scores into a final DUAL score. The original study used a simple summation, but this balancing parameter can be tuned [11].
• Batch Selection: Select the B documents from U with the highest DUAL scores for annotation.
• Model Update: Add the newly labeled documents to L, remove them from U, and fine-tune the summarization model on the updated L.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Implementing and testing these AL strategies requires a suite of computational tools and resources. The following table details key components of a modern AL research stack.

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents for Active Learning Experimentation

Tool / Resource	Type	Primary Function in AL Research	Example Use-Case
AutoML Framework (e.g., AutoSklearn, TPOT) [7]	Software Library	Automates model selection and hyperparameter tuning during the AL cycle, reducing manual bias.	Benchmarking AL strategies with a dynamically optimizing surrogate model [7].
Monte Carlo Dropout [7] [11]	Algorithmic Technique	Estimates predictive uncertainty for deep learning models by performing multiple stochastic forward passes.	Core to the Bayesian Active Summarization (BAS) uncertainty strategy [11].
Pre-trained Language Models (e.g., BART, PEGASUS) [11]	Model / Resource	Serves as the base model for fine-tuning in NLP tasks and provides embeddings for diversity calculation.	Used as the foundational summarization model in the DUAL experiments [11].
Document Embedding Model	Model / Resource	Converts text documents into numerical vector representations to enable similarity calculations.	Calculating cosine similarity for the IDDS diversity score in text-based AL [11].
Pool-Based Sampling Simulator	Custom Software	A controlled environment that simulates the AL loop, including the "oracle" labeling step.	Used in all major benchmarks to fairly and reproducibly compare strategy performance [7] [10].

The comparative analysis of active learning query strategies reveals a nuanced landscape. While simple uncertainty sampling, particularly entropy-based methods, remains a strong and surprisingly robust baseline [10], hybrid strategies that balance uncertainty with diversity consistently demonstrate superior and more reliable performance across various domains, including text summarization [11] and materials science [7]. The key insight for researchers is that the optimal choice is context-dependent: uncertainty-driven or hybrid methods are highly effective in data-scarce environments, while the advantage of sophisticated strategies diminishes as the labeled dataset grows [7].

For drug development professionals, these findings underscore the potential of integrating hybrid active learning strategies into AI-driven discovery pipelines. By strategically selecting the most informative and diverse data points for expensive experimental validation—such as in silico screening or target engagement assays [13]—these principles can significantly reduce costs and accelerate the pace of innovation. Future work should focus on developing more efficient and domain-adapted hybrid strategies, especially for the complex, structured data prevalent in biomedical research.

Active Learning (AL) addresses a fundamental challenge in machine learning: achieving high performance with minimal labeled data. By strategically selecting the most valuable data points for labeling, AL optimizes the use of limited annotation resources, a concern of paramount importance in data-costly fields like drug development [1]. Among the various AL query strategies, Uncertainty Sampling stands out for its intuitive principle and computational efficiency. It operates on a simple yet powerful premise: select the data points that the current model is most uncertain about, as labeling these is expected to provide the maximum information gain [14] [15].

While its application in classification tasks is well-established, its use in regression presents unique challenges and opportunities. This guide provides a performance-focused comparison of Uncertainty Sampling strategies against other AL approaches, drawing on recent comprehensive benchmarks to offer actionable insights for researchers and scientists.

Core Uncertainty Sampling Strategies

Uncertainty Sampling strategies are primarily designed to quantify and target a model's predictive uncertainty. The specific implementation varies significantly between classification and regression tasks.

Strategies for Classification

In classification, where models output a probability distribution over classes, uncertainty is typically measured directly from these probabilities [16] [15]. The most common strategies include:

• Least Confidence: Queries the sample for which the model's top predicted probability is lowest. $U(\mathbf{x}) = 1 - P_\theta(\hat{y} \vert \mathbf{x})$ [15].
• Margin Sampling: Queries the sample with the smallest difference between the top two predicted probabilities. A small margin indicates high ambiguity. $U(\mathbf{x}) = P_\theta(\hat{y}_1 \vert \mathbf{x}) - P_\theta(\hat{y}_2 \vert \mathbf{x})$ [15].
• Entropy: Queries the sample with the highest predictive entropy, which represents the average "surprise" from the prediction. $U(\mathbf{x}) = \mathcal{H}(P_\theta(y \vert \mathbf{x})) = - \sum_{y \in \mathcal{Y}} P_\theta(y \vert \mathbf{x}) \log P_\theta(y \vert \mathbf{x})$ [15].
• Query-by-Committee (QBC): Maintains a committee (ensemble) of models. The sample with the most significant disagreement among committee members, often measured by vote entropy or KL divergence, is selected [16] [15].

Strategies for Regression

Implementing Uncertainty Sampling for regression is more complex because the label space is continuous, and standard models do not output a probability distribution over real-valued targets [7]. Common workarounds include:

• Monte Carlo (MC) Dropout: A popular technique for estimating epistemic (model) uncertainty. By applying dropout at inference time and performing multiple stochastic forward passes, a distribution of predictions is generated. The variance of this distribution serves as the uncertainty measure [7] [15].
• Ensemble Methods: Training an ensemble of models on the same data. The variance of the predictions from the different models is used as the uncertainty score [15].
• Leveraging Predicted Variance: Some models can be trained to directly output both a predicted mean and variance for a given input (e.g., modeling a Gaussian distribution). The predicted variance can then be directly used as the uncertainty measure for sampling [17].

Table 1: Summary of Core Uncertainty Sampling Strategies

Task Type	Strategy	Uncertainty Measure	Key Advantage
Classification	Least Confidence	$1 - P(\hat{y} \vert \mathbf{x})$	Simple and fast to compute
Classification	Margin Sampling	$P(\hat{y}_1 \vert \mathbf{x}) - P(\hat{y}_2 \vert \mathbf{x})$	Focuses on decision boundary ambiguity
Classification	Entropy	$\mathcal{H}(P(y \vert \mathbf{x}))$	Comprehensive use of entire probability distribution
Classification/Regression	Query-by-Committee	Disagreement (e.g., Entropy, KL Div.) among multiple models	Directly targets model (epistemic) uncertainty
Regression	MC Dropout	Variance from multiple stochastic inferences	Good uncertainty estimate without multiple models
Regression	Ensemble	Variance across multiple model predictions	Often provides high-quality uncertainty estimates

Performance Comparison with Other Active Learning Strategies

Recent large-scale benchmarks provide critical insights into how Uncertainty Sampling fares against other families of AL strategies, such as those based on diversity and expected model change.

Performance in Classification Tasks

For tabular classification, a comprehensive 2023 benchmark study that integrated a wide array of datasets, models, and strategies yielded a strong affirmation of Uncertainty Sampling's competitiveness [14]. The study found that Uncertainty Sampling was state-of-the-art on 18 out of 29 binary-class datasets and 5 out of 7 multi-class datasets when paired with a compatible model [14].

A key finding was the critical importance of model compatibility—the model used for the AL query strategy must be the same as the model being trained for the task. Using an incompatible model (e.g., a Logistic Regression model to select samples for a Random Forest) was identified as a primary reason for the subpar performance of Uncertainty Sampling in some prior studies [14]. When this compatibility is maintained, Uncertainty Sampling often outperforms or matches more complex hybrid strategies.

Performance in Regression Tasks

In regression, the performance landscape is nuanced. A 2025 benchmark within an Automated Machine Learning (AutoML) framework for materials science regression tasks showed that the effectiveness of strategies can be phase-dependent [7].

• Early Acquisition Phase: In the initial stages with very few labeled samples, uncertainty-driven strategies (like LCMD, a variance-based method) and diversity-hybrid strategies (like RD-GS) clearly outperformed geometry-only heuristics and random sampling [7].
• Later Acquisition Phase: As the size of the labeled set grows, the performance gap between all strategies, including Uncertainty Sampling, narrows and eventually converges. This indicates diminishing returns from specialized AL under AutoML once a sufficient volume of data is available [7].

Furthermore, geometric analysis suggests that in a 2-class setting, Entropy-, Confidence-, and Margin-based sampling are mathematically equivalent. However, as the number of classes increases, margin-based sampling (MS) may gain an edge by preferentially selecting "riskier" samples located in highly uncertain regions of the probability simplex, potentially leading to better performance with fewer samples [18].

Table 2: Summary of Key Benchmarking Results for Uncertainty Sampling

Benchmark Focus	Key Finding on Uncertainty Sampling	Context & Competitors
Tabular Classification [14]	State-of-the-art on 62% of binary and 71% of multi-class datasets.	Highly competitive against diversity, hybrid, and other methods. Model compatibility is crucial.
Materials Science Regression [7]	Uncertainty & hybrid methods lead early on; all methods converge later.	Outperforms random and geometry-only (GSx, EGAL) early; gap narrows with more data.
Theoretical Analysis [18]	Margin Sampling may outperform other uncertainty methods in multi-class.	Selects "riskier" samples, achieving similar performance with fewer labels than Entropy or Confidence Sampling.

Experimental Protocols and Methodologies

To ensure the reproducibility and proper interpretation of AL comparisons, understanding the standard experimental protocol is essential.

The Pool-Based Active Learning Cycle

The most common framework for evaluating AL is pool-based active learning, which follows a standardized iterative protocol [14]:

• Initialization: Begin with a small, initially labeled pool $D_l$ and a large pool of unlabeled data $D_u$.
• Model Training: Train a model on the current labeled pool $D_l$.
• Query Strategy: Use an acquisition function (e.g., Uncertainty Sampling) to score all samples in $D_u$ and select the most informative one(s), $x^*$.
• Labeling: An oracle (e.g., a human expert) provides the label $y^*$ for $x^*$. This step simulates the costly process of real-world labeling.
• Update: Move the newly labeled sample $(x^*, y^*)$ from $D_u$ to $D_l$.
• Iteration: Repeat steps 2-5 for a pre-defined number of rounds or until a labeling budget is exhausted.

Performance is tracked by evaluating the model on a held-out test set after each round, typically using metrics like accuracy for classification or Mean Absolute Error (MAE) and R² for regression [7].

Quantifying Uncertainty in Regression Experiments

A critical methodological aspect in regression is how uncertainty is quantified for sampling. The benchmark in [7] employed strategies like:

• Tree-based Uncertainty: For tree-based models like Random Forests or Gradient Boosting Machines, the predictive variance across the individual trees in the ensemble can be used directly.
• LCMD (Likelihood-Calibrated Mahalanobis Distance): A strategy that estimates epistemic uncertainty by measuring the distance of a point from the training data in the feature space, calibrated by model likelihood.

The evaluation in these protocols often uses metrics like the Area Under the Sparsification Error (AUSE) and Calibration Error to assess not just the model's final accuracy, but also the quality of its uncertainty estimates [17].

Diagram 1: The standard pool-based active learning workflow.

The Scientist's Toolkit

Implementing and researching Active Learning and Uncertainty Sampling requires a suite of methodological tools and software resources.

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Tools for Active Learning

Category	Item / Tool	Function / Purpose
Methodological Frameworks	Monte Carlo Dropout [15]	Estimates model uncertainty for deep learning models without training multiple models.
Methodological Frameworks	Ensemble Methods [15] [19]	Provides robust uncertainty estimates by aggregating predictions from multiple models.
Methodological Frameworks	Bayesian Neural Networks [15]	Learns a distribution over model parameters, directly quantifying epistemic uncertainty.
Evaluation Metrics	Area Under Sparsification Error (AUSE) [17]	Evaluates how well the predicted uncertainty correlates with the actual prediction error.
Evaluation Metrics	Calibration Error [17]	Measures whether a model's predicted confidence scores align with its actual accuracy.
Evaluation Metrics	Negative Log-Likelihood (NLL) [17]	A scoring rule that evaluates the quality of a model's predicted probability distribution.
Software & Libraries	Open-Source AL Benchmarks [14]	Frameworks that unify interfaces from libraries like libact, ALiPy, ModAL, and scikit-activeml for reproducible research.
Software & Libraries	Automated Machine Learning (AutoML) [7]	Automates model and hyperparameter selection, crucial for robust evaluation of AL strategies under dynamic model conditions.

The body of evidence from recent benchmarks allows for a clear, data-driven conclusion: Uncertainty Sampling remains a highly competitive and often superior query strategy in Active Learning. Its performance is robust across both classification and regression tasks, particularly in the data-scarce regimes common in scientific and industrial applications like drug development.

The key to harnessing its full potential lies in adhering to two principles:

• Ensure Model Compatibility: The model used for the uncertainty query must be the same as the task-oriented model being evaluated [14].
• Choose the Right Uncertainty Variant: For classification, margin and entropy sampling are strong defaults. For regression, ensemble-based variance or MC Dropout are effective choices [18] [7].

While hybrid strategies that combine uncertainty with diversity measures can show an edge in specific scenarios, Uncertainty Sampling provides an unbeaten combination of simplicity, computational efficiency, and state-of-the-art performance, making it an excellent default choice for researchers and practitioners.

In the resource-intensive field of drug discovery, active learning (AL) has emerged as a powerful technique to guide experimental campaigns, maximizing the value of each assay or synthesis. Among various AL strategies, Diversity Sampling is crucial for ensuring that models learn from a broad and representative set of examples, rather than just the most ambiguous ones. This guide objectively compares the performance of Diversity Sampling with other prominent AL strategies, supported by recent experimental data.

↳ Core Principles and the Strategic Role of Diversity Sampling

Active learning iteratively selects data points for labeling to improve a model most efficiently. Diversity Sampling is founded on the principle of representativeness, aiming to cover the underlying data distribution broadly [1] [20]. Its core objective is to avoid redundancy by selecting a set of examples that are, collectively, as informative as possible. This prevents the model from wasting resources on labeling numerous very similar molecules or experiments [20].

This strategy contrasts with, and is often hybridized with, other core AL principles:

• Uncertainty Sampling: Queries the instances the current model is least confident about. While effective for refining decision boundaries, it can lead to querying a cluster of near-identical, ambiguous outliers [20].
• Query-by-Committee: Selects points where multiple models disagree most, capturing model uncertainty [20].
• Expected Model Change: Chooses samples that would cause the largest shift in the model's parameters if their label were known [20].

The necessity of Diversity Sampling becomes clear in complex experimental spaces like drug discovery. For instance, in synergistic drug combination screening, synergy is a rare phenomenon, occurring in only 1.47% to 3.55% of pairs in major datasets [21]. A strategy focused solely on uncertainty might exploit a single promising but narrow region, while a diversity-driven approach systematically explores the vast combinatorial space to uncover multiple promising areas.

↳ Quantitative Performance Comparison

Independent benchmarks across various domains, including materials science and drug discovery, consistently demonstrate the value of diversity-inclusive strategies. The following table summarizes key findings from recent studies.

AL Strategy Category	Specific Strategy Name	Key Performance Findings	Domain / Dataset
Diversity-Hybrid	RD-GS (Representation-Diversity and Geometry-Shaping)	Outperformed geometry-only heuristics and random sampling early in the acquisition process [7].	Materials Science Regression [7]
Diversity-Hybrid	Dynamic Exploration-Exploitation	Discovered 60% of synergistic drug pairs (300 out of 500) by exploring only 10% of the combinatorial space, saving 82% of experimental resources [21].	Drug Combination Screening (ONEIL dataset) [21]
Uncertainty-Based	LCMD, Tree-based-R	Performed well early in the learning process, but were matched or surpassed by hybrid approaches [7].	Materials Science Regression [7]
Diversity-Based	K-Means Clustering	Was consistently outperformed by newer covariance-based methods (COVDROP, COVLAP) designed to maximize joint entropy and diversity [22].	ADMET & Affinity Prediction [22]
Covariance-Based (Diversity)	COVDROP / COVLAP	Achieved superior model performance and faster convergence compared to random sampling, K-Means, and BAIT methods across solubility, permeability, and affinity datasets [22].	Small Molecule Optimization [22]

↳ Detailed Experimental Protocols

To interpret the data in the comparison table accurately, an understanding of the underlying experimental methodologies is essential.

This study established a rigorous pool-based AL framework for small-sample regression tasks, a common scenario in materials informatics.

• Initialization: A small labeled dataset L is created by randomly sampling n_init data points from a larger unlabeled pool U.
• Model Training: An Automated Machine Learning (AutoML) model is trained on L. The use of AutoML is critical, as the surrogate model is not static and can switch between model families (e.g., from linear regressors to tree-based ensembles) across iterations.
• Query Strategy: In each AL cycle, a batch of informative samples is selected from U based on the strategy being tested (e.g., RD-GS for diversity-hybrid, or LCMD for uncertainty).
• Annotation & Update: The selected samples are labeled by an "oracle" (simulating an experiment) and added to L. The AutoML model is then retrained on the updated L.
• Evaluation & Iteration: Model performance is evaluated on a held-out test set using metrics like Mean Absolute Error (MAE) and R². Steps 2-5 are repeated for multiple cycles. This protocol highlights that a successful AL strategy must remain robust even when the underlying model managed by AutoML changes dynamically [7].

This research provides a template for applying AL in a preclinical drug screening context.

• Problem Framing: The task was to build drug-specific models that predict the response of various cancer cell lines to a specific drug.
• Data Foundation: The analysis used the Cancer Therapeutics Response Portal v2 (CTRP), which includes data on 494 drugs and 812 cell lines.
• AL Cycle: For a given drug, the process starts with a small set of tested cell lines.
  • A prediction model is trained on the currently available response data.
  • The model's predictions (and their uncertainties) on the untested cell lines are used with a defined strategy (e.g., diversity-based, uncertainty-based) to select the next set of cell lines to test experimentally.
  • The new experimental results are added to the training data.
• Dual Evaluation: Strategies were judged on two criteria: a) the number of responsive treatments ("hits") identified early, and b) the performance of the response prediction model built from the acquired data [23].

↳ The Strategic Trade-Off: Exploration vs. Exploitation

The choice between different AL strategies often boils down to managing the exploration-exploitation trade-off, a relationship visualized below.

↳ The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Solutions

The successful implementation of an AL-driven discovery pipeline relies on both computational tools and experimental resources.

Tool / Resource	Function in Active Learning Workflow
AutoML Frameworks	Automates the selection and hyperparameter tuning of machine learning models, making the AL process robust to changes in the underlying surrogate model [7].
Graph Neural Networks (GNNs)	Provides advanced molecular representations by modeling molecular structure as a graph, capturing topological information crucial for accurate property prediction [21] [22].
Gene Expression Profiles (e.g., from GDSC)	Supplies cellular context features for models, significantly improving predictions for tasks like drug synergy and response by accounting for the biological environment [21].
High-Throughput Screening Assays	Acts as the physical "oracle" in the AL loop, enabling the rapid experimental testing of the computationally selected batches of molecules or conditions [23] [21].
Public Bioactivity Databases (e.g., ChEMBL, CTRP)	Provides large, curated datasets essential for pre-training models and for conducting retrospective benchmarks to evaluate active learning strategies [23] [22].

Active learning is a machine learning paradigm that strategically selects the most informative data points for labeling to optimize the learning process, thereby minimizing labeling costs while maximizing model performance [1]. This approach is particularly valuable in fields like drug discovery, where obtaining labeled data through experiments is costly and time-consuming [22]. The core premise involves an iterative cycle where a model actively queries an oracle (e.g., a human expert) to label the most valuable samples from a pool of unlabeled data [1] [20].

Various query strategies have been developed to identify which unlabeled instances would be most beneficial for model training. Among the most common are uncertainty sampling, which selects points where the model's prediction confidence is lowest; query-by-committee, which chooses points where multiple models disagree the most; and diversity sampling, which aims to create a representative training set by selecting a broad spread of data points [20] [24]. This guide focuses on a more complex strategy known as Expected Model Change (EMC), a principled approach that selects data points based on their potential to induce the most significant alteration to the current model [20].

Understanding Expected Model Change

Core Principle and Mechanism

Expected Model Change is an active learning strategy that quantifies the potential impact of acquiring a new data point's label by estimating how much the model's parameters would change if it were trained on that point [20]. Unlike uncertainty sampling, which focuses solely on the model's current predictive uncertainty, EMC directly targets the learning progress of the model itself. The fundamental intuition is that labeling an instance that would cause a substantial update to the model is likely to correct errors or refine the decision boundary more effectively than labeling an instance that would only cause a minor adjustment [20].

In practical terms, EMC strategies often work by computing the gradient of the model's loss function with respect to its parameters for a given unlabeled sample. This is done for each possible label that the sample might have. The magnitude of this gradient—often measured by its norm—serves as an estimate of how much the model would learn from that example. The samples associated with the largest expected gradient norms are considered the most informative and are prioritized for labeling [20].

Comparative Advantages and Challenges

The primary advantage of EMC is its direct alignment with the ultimate goal of active learning: to achieve the maximum improvement in model performance per labeling effort. By seeking data points that provoke the largest learning steps, it can lead to faster convergence and higher accuracy with fewer labeled examples [20].

However, this strategy is not without its challenges. The computational cost of EMC can be prohibitively high [20]. For each candidate data point in the unlabeled pool, the algorithm must simulate a training step for every possible label, which is computationally intensive, especially for large models and datasets. Moreover, for complex models like modern deep neural networks, reliably approximating the expected model change is non-trivial [20]. Researchers have explored various proxies to mitigate this, such as training auxiliary "loss prediction" modules that forecast how much the loss would drop if a sample were labeled [20].

Performance Comparison of Active Learning Strategies

A comprehensive benchmark study evaluated 17 active learning strategies within an Automated Machine Learning (AutoML) framework for small-sample regression tasks in materials science [7]. The study analyzed performance in terms of model accuracy (Mean Absolute Error and R²) and data efficiency across nine different datasets.

Table 1: Summary of Active Learning Strategy Performance in Materials Science Benchmark [7]

Strategy Category	Example Methods	Early-Stage Performance (Data-Scarce)	Late-Stage Performance (Data-Rich)	Key Characteristics
Uncertainty-Driven	LCMD, Tree-based-R	Clearly outperformed geometry-only heuristics and random baseline	Converged with other methods	Selects samples where the model is least certain
Diversity-Hybrid	RD-GS	Clearly outperformed geometry-only heuristics and random baseline	Converged with other methods	Combines uncertainty with diversity to avoid redundancy
Geometry-Only	GSx, EGAL	Underperformed compared to uncertainty and hybrid methods	Converged with other methods	Relies on data distribution geometry, ignores model uncertainty

The study concluded that during the early, data-scarce phase of learning, uncertainty-driven and diversity-hybrid strategies were particularly effective [7]. As the volume of labeled data increased, the performance gap between different strategies narrowed, indicating diminishing returns from active learning under an AutoML framework [7].

In the specific context of drug discovery, a benchmark study evaluated active learning protocols for predicting ligand-binding affinity on datasets for targets like TYK2, USP7, D2R, and Mpro [25]. The study compared a Gaussian Process (GP) model with a deep learning model (Chemprop) and examined the impact of batch size.

Table 2: Key Findings from Ligand-Binding Affinity Prediction Benchmark [25]

Experimental Factor	Performance Impact	Recommendation
Model Choice	GP model superior to Chemprop with sparse training data; comparable performance with abundant data.	Use GP models when initial labeled data is limited.
Initial Batch Size	Larger initial batch size increased recall of top binders and improved overall correlation metrics.	Use a larger batch for the initial cycle, especially on diverse datasets.
Subsequent Batch Size	Smaller batch sizes (20 or 30 compounds) proved desirable after the initial cycle.	Use smaller batches for iterative refinement.
Data Noise	Models could tolerate low levels of artificial Gaussian noise. Excessive noise (>1σ) harmed predictive and exploitative capabilities.	Ensure data quality and be mindful of noise thresholds.

Another empirical investigation across 75 datasets provided further evidence that the effectiveness of active learning is not universal but depends on the interaction between the query strategy and the underlying classification algorithm [26].

Experimental Protocols for Benchmarking Query Strategies

To ensure reproducible and fair comparisons of active learning strategies, researchers follow structured experimental protocols. The following workflow diagram and subsequent explanation outline a standard pool-based active learning benchmark framework, common in fields like materials science and drug discovery [7] [22].

Workflow for Benchmarking Active Learning Strategies

Detailed Benchmarking Methodology

The typical pool-based active learning benchmark follows these steps [7] [26]:

• Dataset Preparation and Initialization: A dataset is split into a training pool (treated as unlabeled) and a separate, held-out test set. A small number of samples (n_init) are randomly selected from the training pool to form the initial labeled set L, while the remainder constitutes the unlabeled pool U [7].

• Iterative Active Learning Cycle: The following steps are repeated until a stopping criterion is met (e.g., the unlabeled pool is exhausted or a labeling budget is reached) [7] [22]:

  • Model Training and Validation: A model is trained on the current labeled set L. Within the AutoML workflow, model validation, including hyperparameter tuning, is typically performed automatically using 5-fold cross-validation [7].
  • Performance Evaluation: The trained model's performance is measured on the fixed test set using pre-defined metrics such as Root Mean Square Error (RMSE), Mean Absolute Error (MAE), or Coefficient of Determination (R²) for regression tasks [7] [22] [25].
  • Query Strategy Execution: Each active learning strategy under investigation is applied to the unlabeled pool U. The strategy scores all unlabeled instances based on its acquisition function (e.g., estimated uncertainty, expected model change, or diversity) and selects the top B candidates (where B is the batch size) for labeling [7] [20].
  • Oracle Labeling and Set Update: The selected batch is passed to an "oracle" (in benchmarks, this is simulated by using the ground-truth labels). These newly labeled samples (x*, y*) are removed from U and added to L [7].

• Analysis and Comparison: The performance metrics for each strategy are plotted against the number of labeling iterations or the total size of the labeled set. This allows for a direct comparison of the data efficiency and asymptotic performance of each method [7] [26] [25].

Key Research Reagents and Computational Tools

The following table details essential software tools and conceptual "reagents" used in modern active learning research, particularly in scientific domains.

Table 3: Essential Research Tools for Active Learning Experiments

Tool / Solution	Type	Primary Function in Research	Application Context
AutoML Frameworks [7]	Software	Automates model selection, hyperparameter tuning, and feature preprocessing; ensures fair comparison by reducing manual bias.	General ML, Materials Science
DeepChem [22]	Software Library	Provides implementations of deep learning models specifically designed for chemical data, including molecules and compounds.	Drug Discovery, Chemistry
Gaussian Process (GP) Models [25]	Model	Offers native, well-calibrated uncertainty estimates, making them powerful for uncertainty-based AL, especially with small data.	Ligand-Binding Affinity Prediction
Monte Carlo Dropout [7] [20]	Technique	Approximates Bayesian inference in neural networks to estimate predictive uncertainty without multiple models.	Deep Batch Active Learning
Query Strategy [20]	Conceptual	The core algorithm that defines how unlabeled samples are scored and selected for labeling (e.g., EMC, Uncertainty).	All Active Learning Applications
Oracle (Human Expert / Simulation) [1] [20]	Conceptual	Provides the ground-truth labels for selected data points; simulated using existing labels in benchmark studies.	All Active Learning Applications

The empirical evidence from recent benchmarks provides clear guidance for researchers and drug development professionals selecting active learning strategies. Uncertainty-driven and hybrid diversity-based methods consistently deliver strong performance, particularly in the critical early stages when labeled data is scarce [7] [26]. While Expected Model Change represents a powerful principle aligned directly with learning efficiency, its practical application is often constrained by computational complexity, especially with large-scale deep learning models [20].

The choice of an optimal strategy is not universal but is contingent on several factors, including the dataset size and diversity, the machine learning model used, and the available labeling budget [7] [25]. For drug discovery applications, starting with a larger initial batch and leveraging models with robust inherent uncertainty quantification, like Gaussian Processes, can provide a significant advantage [25]. As the field progresses, developing more computationally efficient approximations of Expected Model Change and its integration into user-friendly platforms like DeepChem [22] will be crucial for unlocking its full potential in accelerating scientific discovery.

Active Learning (AL) is a supervised machine learning paradigm designed to maximize model performance while minimizing the cost of data annotation. Unlike passive learning, which relies on a static, randomly selected training set, AL operates through an iterative feedback loop. This loop strategically selects the most informative data points for labeling, incorporates them into the training set, and updates the model, thereby achieving greater data efficiency. The core challenge in pool-based AL—where a large pool of unlabeled data is available—is to identify which instances, if labeled, would most significantly improve model performance. This article provides a comparative analysis of the query strategies at the heart of this loop, synthesizing findings from recent large-scale benchmarks to guide researchers and practitioners in drug development and related fields.

The "Active Learning Loop" is a cyclic process of iterative selection, labeling, and model updates. It begins with a small initial labeled set. A model is trained on this set and is then used to evaluate a larger pool of unlabeled data. According to a specific query strategy, the most valuable instances are selected from this pool. An oracle—often a human expert, a costly experimental assay, or a complex simulation in drug development—provides labels for these selected instances. The newly labeled data is added to the training set, and the model is retrained. This loop continues until a predefined stopping criterion is met, such as exhaustion of the labeling budget or convergence of model performance [7] [1] [14].

Experimental Protocols and Benchmarking Frameworks

To objectively compare the performance of different AL query strategies, researchers employ standardized experimental protocols. A typical benchmark setup involves the following key components, as detailed in recent comprehensive studies [7] [10] [14]:

• Initial Setup: The process begins with a dataset, D, partitioned into a labeled set, L = {(xi, yi)}{i=1}^l, and a large pool of unlabeled data, U = {xi}_{i=l+}^n. The initial labeled set L is typically very small.
• Execution Setup: The AL algorithm operates over multiple rounds, with a total query budget T. In each round, a batch of unlabeled examples is selected for labeling.
• Iterative Query Steps:
  • Query: A query strategy Q selects the most informative sample(s) x* from the unlabeled pool U.
  • Label: The label y* for x* is acquired from an oracle O.
  • Update Pools: The newly labeled example (x, y) is moved from U to L.
  • Model Update: A model is retrained on the updated labeled set L, and its performance is evaluated on a held-out test set.
• Evaluation Metrics: Common metrics include Mean Absolute Error (MAE) for regression tasks and Accuracy or Coefficient of Determination (R²) for classification and regression, respectively. Performance is often tracked across AL cycles to measure the learning curve's area or final convergence value [7] [14].

A critical finding from recent benchmarks is the issue of model compatibility. The model used to select queries (the query-oriented model) must be compatible with the model being evaluated for the task (the task-oriented model). Incompatibility can severely degrade the performance of certain strategies, particularly Uncertainty Sampling [14].

Workflow Diagram of the Active Learning Loop

The following diagram illustrates the iterative cycle of pool-based active learning, incorporating the key components of selection, labeling, and model updating.

Comparative Performance of Active Learning Query Strategies

Quantitative Comparison of Query Strategies

Table 1: Performance comparison of major Active Learning query strategies across different tasks and datasets.

Query Strategy	Core Principle	Reported Performance Findings	Key References
Uncertainty Sampling (US)	Selects instances where the current model is most uncertain (e.g., lowest predicted probability for classification).	Competitive state-of-the-art (SOTA) on 18/29 binary-class and 5/7 multi-class tabular datasets; simple entropy-based approach outperforms many complex methods in general settings.	[14] [10]
Query-by-Committee (QBC)	Uses a committee of models; selects instances with the greatest disagreement among committee members.	Can achieve performance parity with full-data baselines using only 30% of data in materials informatics, equivalent to 70-95% savings in labeling.	[7] [27]
Diversity Sampling	Selects instances that are representative of the overall data distribution to maximize coverage.	Geometry-only heuristics (e.g., GSx, EGAL) are often outperformed by uncertainty-driven and hybrid methods, especially early in the learning process.	[7]
Expected Model Change	Selects instances that would cause the greatest change to the current model parameters if their labels were known.	Evaluated in comprehensive benchmarks; performance is typically surpassed by well-tuned uncertainty-based methods.	[7] [27]
Hybrid (Uncertainty + Diversity)	Combines uncertainty and diversity criteria to avoid querying outliers or redundant instances.	Uncertainty-diversity hybrid (RD-GS) outperforms geometry-only heuristics early in the acquisition process.	[7]
Reinforcement Learning (RL) / Deep Learning (DL)	Uses RL or DL to learn the optimal data selection policy.	Despite their complexity, some methods fail to consistently outperform random sampling, while others are outperformed by entropy.	[10] [27]

Performance Under Different Experimental Conditions

Table 2: Impact of experimental settings and model architecture on Active Learning strategy efficacy.

Experimental Factor	Impact on AL Strategy Performance	Key References
Initial Labeled Set Size	The effectiveness gap between strategies is most pronounced in early, data-scarce phases; narrows as the labeled set grows.	[7] [10]
Model Compatibility	Using different models for querying (query-oriented) and task evaluation (task-oriented) degrades Uncertainty Sampling performance. US is most competitive with compatible models.	[14]
Integration with AutoML	In an AutoML workflow where the surrogate model can change, an AL strategy must remain robust to model drift. Simple strategies like entropy can be effective.	[7]
Task Domain	Effectiveness varies across tasks (e.g., classification, regression, object detection). In object detection, combining AL with semi-supervised learning improved over a random baseline by >6%.	[10]
Combination with Semi-Supervised Learning	A simple combination of AL and semi-supervised learning can yield better results than either technique in isolation.	[10]

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Implementing a robust active learning pipeline requires a suite of software tools and libraries. The table below details key open-source resources that facilitate the development, benchmarking, and application of AL strategies.

Table 3: Essential software tools and libraries for implementing Active Learning research.

Tool / Library Name	Primary Function	Application Context
libact	Provides a unified framework for implementing and comparing pool-based AL strategies.	General AL research and prototyping.	[14]
ALiPy	Offers a comprehensive set of tools for AL, including various query strategies and evaluation modules.	General AL research and prototyping.	[14]
ModAL	A modular active learning framework for Python, designed to work with scikit-learn.	Rapid prototyping and integration with existing scikit-learn workflows.	[14]
scikit-activeml	A library for AL built on top of scikit-learn, following its API design principles.	Integration with scikit-learn ecosystems.	[14]
Google AL Playground	An online environment for experimenting with different AL strategies and datasets.	Educational purposes and initial strategy exploration.	[14]
Automated Machine Learning (AutoML)	Frameworks that automatically search for optimal models and hyperparameters.	Integrating AL with model selection in resource-constrained environments like materials science.	[7]

The empirical evidence from recent large-scale benchmarks offers clear, actionable insights for researchers and drug development professionals employing the Active Learning loop. The performance of a query strategy is not absolute but is highly dependent on the experimental context, including the model architecture, data budget, and task domain.

A primary recommendation is to begin with Uncertainty Sampling as a strong, computationally efficient baseline, ensuring that the model used for query selection is the same as the model being trained (the task-oriented model) [14]. Furthermore, practitioners should prioritize simple, well-understood strategies like entropy-based sampling before investing in more complex methods, which may not provide consistent gains under general settings [10]. Finally, the integration of AL with other data-efficient paradigms like AutoML and semi-supervised learning presents a promising path for maximizing knowledge extraction from every expensive data point, a critical concern in fields like drug development and materials science [7] [10]. By grounding strategy selection in rigorous, comparative data, scientists can optimize the iterative selection, labeling, and model update loop to accelerate discovery while controlling costs.

Implementing Active Learning in Drug Discovery: From Screening to Synergy

Pool-Based Active Learning for Drug Response Prediction

Pool-based active learning (AL) is revolutionizing drug response prediction by enabling more data-efficient and cost-effective research. In this paradigm, machine learning models iteratively select the most informative samples from a large pool of unlabeled data for expert annotation, dramatically reducing the experimental burden required to build accurate predictive models [1]. For drug discovery—where wet-lab experiments and clinical trials are prohibitively expensive—this approach offers a strategic framework for prioritizing the most promising candidates [28]. This guide provides a comparative analysis of AL methodologies, experimental protocols, and computational tools deployed in modern pharmacogenomics, offering researchers an evidence-based resource for navigating this rapidly evolving field.

Comparative Performance of Active Learning Query Strategies

Active learning performance varies significantly across query strategies, with optimal selection depending on data budget and specific research goals. A comprehensive benchmark study evaluating 17 AL strategies on materials science regression tasks—closely analogous to drug response prediction—reveals distinct performance patterns [7].

Table 1: Performance Comparison of Active Learning Strategies in Small-Sample Regimes

Strategy Type	Example Methods	Early-Stage Performance	Late-Stage Performance	Key Characteristics
Uncertainty-Driven	LCMD, Tree-based-R	Superior	Converges with others	Selects samples where model is least confident
Diversity-Hybrid	RD-GS	Superior	Converges with others	Balances uncertainty with sample diversity
Geometry-Only	GSx, EGAL	Moderate	Converges with others	Focuses on data space coverage
Random Baseline	Random Sampling	Reference	Reference	Non-strategic selection

The benchmark demonstrates that during early acquisition phases with limited data, uncertainty-driven (LCMD, Tree-based-R) and diversity-hybrid (RD-GS) strategies significantly outperform geometry-only heuristics and random sampling [7]. However, as the labeled set grows, this performance gap narrows, indicating diminishing returns from advanced AL strategies under large data budgets [7].

Experimental Protocols and Workflows

Standard Pool-Based Active Learning Protocol

The foundational protocol for pool-based AL in drug response prediction follows these methodical steps:

• Initialization: A small set of labeled data ((L = {(xi, yi)}{i=1}^l)) is randomly sampled from the larger unlabeled pool ((U = {xi}_{i=l+1}^n)) to initialize training [7].
• Model Training: A machine learning model (ranging from standard regressors to Automated Machine Learning [AutoML] systems) is trained on the current labeled set [7] [1].
• Query Strategy Application: An AL query strategy selects the most informative sample ((x^*)) from the unlabeled pool based on criteria such as predictive uncertainty, diversity, or expected model change [7] [1].
• Human Annotation: The selected sample undergoes experimental testing or expert labeling to obtain its target value ((y^*)), simulating costly drug response measurement [7] [1].
• Model Update: The newly labeled sample ((x^, y^)) is added to the training set ((L = L \cup {(x^, y^)})), and the model is retrained [7] [1].
• Iteration: Steps 3-5 repeat until a stopping criterion is met, such as exhaustion of the experimental budget or performance convergence [7].

This workflow creates a closed-loop system between computational prediction and experimental validation, progressively enhancing model accuracy while minimizing resource expenditure [29].

Specialized Protocol for Cold-Start Drug Combination Screening

The "cold-start" problem—where no patient-specific information is available—requires specialized protocols for personalized combination drug screening. The following method addresses this challenge:

• Pretrained Model Leverage: A deep learning model is pretrained on historical drug response data from other patients to learn embeddings for drug combinations and dose-level importance scores [30].
• Diverse Combination Selection: (K)-medoids clustering is applied to the learned drug combination embeddings to identify a diverse and representative subset of drug combinations for initial testing [30].
• Informed Dose Selection: Dose levels are prioritized based on importance scores derived from the pretrained model, which reflect historical informativeness [30].
• Experimental Batch Construction: The selected drug-dose combinations form the initial experimental batch for a new patient, efficiently exploring the combinatorial space without prior patient data [30].

Retrospective simulations on large-scale drug combination datasets confirm that this approach substantially improves initial screening efficiency compared to random selection or other baseline strategies [30].

Protocol for MD Simulation-Enhanced Virtual Screening

Integrating molecular dynamics (MD) with AL creates a powerful protocol for virtual drug screening:

• Receptor Ensemble Generation: Extensive MD simulations (≈100 µs) of the target protein generate multiple structural snapshots to account for protein flexibility [28].
• Target-Specific Scoring Development: An empirical or learned scoring function (e.g., "h-score") is designed to measure target inhibition by rewarding occlusion of key binding pockets and optimal interaction distances [28].
• Multi-Structure Docking: Candidate compounds are docked against each structure in the receptor ensemble [28].
• Active Learning Cycle: A small initial set (e.g., 1% of library) is screened, followed by iterative AL cycles that select the most promising extension sets based on the target-specific score until known inhibitors are ranked highly [28].

This protocol dramatically reduces computational and experimental burdens, successfully identifying potent nanomolar inhibitors of TMPRSS2 while reducing the number of compounds requiring experimental testing to less than 20 [28].

Workflow and Signaling Pathway Diagrams

Pool-Based Active Learning Workflow

Active Learning Workflow

TRANSPIRE-DRP Domain Adaptation Architecture

TRANSPIRE-DRP Architecture

Research Reagent Solutions Toolkit

Table 2: Essential Research Tools for Active Learning in Drug Response Prediction

Tool Category	Specific Resource	Function in Research	Key Applications
Preclinical Models	Patient-Derived Xenograft (PDX) Models	Provide biologically faithful tumor models with preserved heterogeneity and clinical relevance [31].	Translational drug response prediction, biomarker discovery [31].
	Patient-Derived Organoids/Spheroids	Enable ex vivo high-throughput drug screening while maintaining patient-specific characteristics [30].	Personalized combination therapy testing, functional precision medicine [30].
Data Resources	Cancer Cell Line Encyclopedia (CCLE)	Offers comprehensive genomic and drug response data across diverse cancer lineages [31] [32].	Model pretraining, transfer learning, biological feature analysis [31] [32].
	Genomics of Drug Sensitivity in Cancer (GDSC)	Large-scale drug sensitivity database with molecular profiling [31] [32].	Drug response benchmarking, pharmacogenomic studies [31] [32].
	Novartis PDX Panel	Standardized PDX database with "1×1×1" design (one patient, one model, one drug response) [31].	PDX-based model development, clinical translation studies [31].
Computational Frameworks	TRANSPIRE-DRP	Deep learning framework using domain adaptation to bridge PDX-patient translational gap [31].	Clinical translation of preclinical drug response predictions [31].
	ATSDP-NET	Attention-based transfer learning for single-cell drug response prediction [32].	Single-cell level heterogeneity analysis, resistance mechanism studies [32].
	Automated Machine Learning (AutoML)	Automates model selection, hyperparameter tuning, and preprocessing [7].	Efficient model development with limited data, benchmarking AL strategies [7].
Experimental Platforms	Molecular Dynamics (MD) Simulations	Generates structural ensembles of target proteins, accounts for flexibility [28].	Virtual screening, binding mechanism analysis, receptor ensemble generation [28].

Pool-based active learning represents a paradigm shift in drug response prediction, strategically addressing the field's fundamental challenge of data scarcity amid combinatorial complexity. The comparative analysis presented in this guide demonstrates that uncertainty-driven and diversity-hybrid query strategies typically offer superior early-stage efficiency, while specialized protocols like TRANSPIRE-DRP's domain adaptation and cold-start combination screening provide robust frameworks for specific translational challenges. As the field advances, the integration of biologically relevant preclinical models with sophisticated computational frameworks continues to enhance the predictive accuracy and clinical applicability of active learning systems, ultimately accelerating therapeutic discovery and personalized oncology.

In the field of preclinical drug discovery, identifying promising therapeutic candidates—or "hits"—efficiently is a fundamental challenge. The selection of cancer cell lines for screening is a critical factor in this process, directly impacting the cost, duration, and ultimate success of research campaigns. With the rising adoption of data-driven approaches, active learning strategies are proving to be powerful tools for optimizing cell line selection. These strategies guide the iterative selection of the most informative experiments, significantly enhancing the efficiency of hit identification compared to traditional random screening methods. This guide objectively compares the performance of various active learning query strategies within this context, providing researchers with a data-backed framework for designing more effective and resource-conscious screening pipelines.

Active Learning in Preclinical Screening: A Primer

Active learning (AL) is a machine learning paradigm that transforms the experimental process into an interactive, iterative loop. Instead of relying on a static, pre-defined set of labeled data (e.g., results from a fixed panel of cell lines), an AL algorithm actively selects the most valuable data points to label next—in this context, the most informative cell lines on which to test a compound.

The core process, as detailed in benchmarking studies, follows these steps [7] [23]:

• Initialization: A model is trained on a very small initial set of labeled data (e.g., drug response data from a handful of cell lines).
• Model Prediction: The model makes predictions on a large pool of unlabeled data (the remaining untested cell lines).
• Query Strategy: A predefined query strategy analyzes the predictions to select the most informative cell lines from the unlabeled pool.
• Experiment and Labeling: The selected cell lines are tested experimentally, generating the drug response labels.
• Model Update: The newly acquired data is added to the training set, and the model is retrained. This loop continues until a stopping criterion is met, such as the identification of a sufficient number of hits or the exhaustion of the experimental budget [1] [33].

The following diagram illustrates this iterative workflow:

Comparative Analysis of Active Learning Strategies

Various query strategies have been developed to tackle the question of which cell lines are "most informative." Their performance can vary significantly based on the goal, such as rapidly identifying responsive cell lines (hits) versus building a globally accurate predictive model. The table below summarizes the key characteristics and comparative performance of common strategies.

Table 1: Comparison of Active Learning Query Strategies for Hit Identification

Strategy	Core Principle	Relative Experimental Efficiency	Best-Suated Application	Key Strengths	Key Limitations
Uncertainty Sampling [23] [1] [33]	Selects cell lines where the model's prediction is least confident (e.g., predicted IC50 closest to the decision threshold).	High	Rapidly refining the model around the "decision boundary" to distinguish responders from non-responders.	Intuitive; computationally lightweight; excellent for initial rapid hit finding.	Can overlook exploration of the broader biological space, potentially missing novel, rare hit types.
Diversity Sampling [23] [1]	Selects a diverse set of cell lines that are most dissimilar to the already labeled set.	Medium	Ensuring broad coverage of different cancer types, genetic backgrounds, and morphologies in the training data.	Captures the heterogeneity of cancer; reduces redundancy in testing; improves model generalizability.	May select many easy-to-predict, uninformative samples that do not challenge or improve the model.
Query-by-Committee (QBC) [7] [33]	Utilizes an ensemble of models; selects cell lines where the models disagree the most.	High	Complex datasets where model uncertainty is high; robustly identifying ambiguous cases.	Reduces model bias; theoretically powerful for exploring complex feature spaces.	Computationally expensive due to training multiple models.
Hybrid (Uncertainty + Diversity) [7] [23]	Combines principles of uncertainty and diversity to select cell lines that are both informative and representative of the broader data landscape.	Very High	Most real-world scenarios, offering a balanced approach to exploration and exploitation.	Prevents myopic sampling; consistently outperforms single-principle strategies in benchmarks.	More complex to implement and tune than simpler strategies.
Expected Model Change [33]	Selects cell lines that, if labeled, would cause the greatest change to the current model's parameters.	Medium (Theoretical)	Scenarios where the goal is to maximize the learning signal from each new data point.	Directly targets model improvement; can be very data-efficient.	Computationally prohibitive for large models and datasets; rarely used in practice.
Random Sampling (Baseline) [7] [23]	Selects cell lines at random from the unlabeled pool.	Low	Establishing a performance baseline; when no prior knowledge exists.	Simple to implement; unbiased.	Inefficient; requires significantly more experiments to achieve the same performance as AL strategies.

Performance Benchmarking Data

A comprehensive benchmark study evaluating 17 different AL strategies within an Automated Machine Learning (AutoML) framework for regression tasks (like predicting IC50 values) provides critical quantitative insights [7]. The study found that in the early, data-scarce phase of a campaign—which is most critical for efficient hit identification—uncertainty-driven strategies (such as LCMD and Tree-based-R) and diversity-hybrid strategies (like RD-GS) clearly outperformed geometry-only heuristics and random sampling [7]. These strategies selected more informative samples, leading to a steeper improvement in model accuracy with fewer experiments. As the labeled set grew, the performance gap between all strategies narrowed, indicating diminishing returns from active learning [7].

Another investigation focused specifically on anti-cancer drug response confirmed these findings. It demonstrated that most active learning strategies were substantially more efficient than random selection for identifying effective treatments (hits) [23]. For some drugs and experimental runs, these strategies also improved the prediction performance of the response model itself compared to a greedy approach [23].

The relationship between the number of experiments performed and the cumulative hit identification rate for different strategies can be visualized as follows:

Experimental Protocols for Validating Strategy Performance

To ensure the reliability and reproducibility of comparisons between active learning strategies, a standardized experimental protocol is essential. The following methodology, synthesized from recent studies, provides a robust framework for benchmarking.

Data Preparation and Initialization

• Data Source: Utilize a large, publicly available drug screening dataset such as the Cancer Therapeutics Response Portal (CTRP) [23] or the Genomics of Drug Sensitivity in Cancer (GDSC) [34]. These datasets provide dose-response data (e.g., AUC, IC50) for numerous compounds across a panel of genetically characterized cancer cell lines.
• Data Splitting: For a given drug, the complete set of tested cell lines is partitioned into an initial training set (e.g., 5-10% of cell lines), a large unlabeled pool (e.g., 70-80%), and a hold-out test set (e.g., 20%) to evaluate final model performance [23]. The unlabeled pool serves as the source for AL selection.
• Feature Representation: Cell lines are represented by their genomic features, such as gene expression profiles, mutation status, and copy number variations, which are used as input features for the model [23].

Active Learning Iteration and Evaluation

• Model Training: A regression model (e.g., a random forest or a model selected via an AutoML framework [7]) is trained on the current labeled set to predict the drug response metric.
• Strategy Application: The trained model is used to predict responses for all cell lines in the unlabeled pool. A query strategy (e.g., Uncertainty Sampling, QBC, Hybrid) is applied to this pool to select the top k most informative cell lines (e.g., k=5) [23].
• "Labeling": In a benchmarking study, the true drug response values for the selected cell lines are retrieved from the dataset (simulating a wet-lab experiment) and added to the labeled training set [23].
• Performance Tracking: Two key metrics are recorded at each iteration:
  • Cumulative Hits Identified: The number of responsive cell lines (hits) discovered so far, where a "hit" may be defined as a cell line with an AUC below a predefined threshold or an IC50 within a clinically relevant range [23].
  • Model Prediction Accuracy: The model's performance on the independent hold-out test set, measured by metrics like Mean Absolute Error (MAE) or R² [7] [23].
• Iteration: Steps 1-4 are repeated for a fixed number of iterations or until the unlabeled pool is exhausted.

This protocol allows for the direct comparison of how quickly different strategies accumulate hits and improve model accuracy as a function of the number of experiments conducted.

Successful implementation of a computational active learning pipeline for drug screening relies on integration with robust experimental biology tools. The following table details key reagents and resources central to this field.

Table 2: Key Research Reagent Solutions for Preclinical Drug Screening

Resource / Reagent	Function in Screening Workflow	Specific Examples & Notes
Annotated Cell Line Panels	Provides the biological models for testing compound efficacy across diverse genetic backgrounds.	Panels like the 755-cell line panel used in pan-cancer screens [34] [35] are critical for capturing tumor heterogeneity.
Viability/Apoptosis Assays	Quantifies the cytotoxic or cytostatic effect of drug treatments.	CellTiter-Glo (ATP quantitation) [36], Caspase-Glo 3/7 (apoptosis) [36], and quantitative nuclei imaging (e.g., H2B-mRuby) [37]. Imaging offers direct viability measurement, less susceptible to drug-induced metabolic artifacts [37].
Compound Libraries	Source of therapeutic candidates for screening.	Prestwick Chemical Library (FDA-approved compounds) [38] and in-house "Melanoma drug library" (MDL) [38] are used for drug repurposing. The NIH Chemical Genomic Center's Pharmaceutical Collection (NPC) is another example [36].
3D Culture Systems	Provides a more physiologically relevant model than 2D culture, incorporating architecture and cell-ECM interactions.	3D spheroids and hydrogel systems for skin, lung, and liver metastatic sites [38]. These models facilitate more accurate assessment of therapeutic compounds [38].
In Vivo Validation Models	Confirms the therapeutic efficacy and safety of hits identified in vitro.	Zebrafish xenograft models offer a vertebrate model for a more refined and accurate assessment of drug response prior to murine studies [38].

The treatment of complex diseases like cancer is increasingly moving away from single-drug therapies toward combination approaches. Drug combinations can offer enhanced efficacy, reduced toxicity, and the ability to overcome drug resistance by targeting multiple disease mechanisms simultaneously [39] [21]. However, the discovery of effective combinations presents a monumental combinatorial challenge—with thousands of approved drugs and investigational compounds, the number of possible pairs grows quadratically, creating a search space that can encompass millions of candidates [39].

Traditional high-throughput screening (HTS) approaches, while valuable, are resource-intensive and impractical for exhaustively testing these vast spaces. A typical large-scale screening campaign can involve hundreds of thousands of experiments conducted over hundreds of rounds [21]. This has created an urgent need for more efficient discovery strategies that can intelligently navigate the combinatorial landscape to identify the rare synergistic pairs—those where the combined effect exceeds the expected additive effect of the individual drugs.

Active learning (AL), a machine learning paradigm that iteratively selects the most informative samples for experimental testing, has emerged as a powerful strategy for accelerating this discovery process. By combining computational predictions with focused experimental validation, AL frameworks can dramatically reduce the number of experiments required to identify synergistic combinations [21]. This guide provides a comprehensive comparison of active learning strategies specifically applied to synergistic drug combination discovery, evaluating their performance across key metrics and providing detailed experimental protocols for implementation.

Active Learning Framework for Drug Combination Discovery

Core Components and Workflow

Active learning systems for drug combination discovery integrate computational and experimental components in an iterative cycle. The process begins with an initial set of labeled data—known drug combinations with measured synergy scores—and a much larger pool of unlabeled candidate pairs. In each cycle, the AL algorithm selects the most promising candidates from the unlabeled pool based on a specific query strategy, these candidates are tested experimentally, and the newly labeled data is used to update the predictive model [7] [21].

The core components of this framework include: (1) a molecular encoding system representing drug pairs and their cellular context, (2) a predictive model that estimates synergy scores for unseen combinations, (3) a query strategy that prioritizes which combinations to test next, and (4) experimental protocols for validating predictions [21]. The effectiveness of the overall system depends on the careful integration of these components, with particular emphasis on the choice of query strategy that determines which combinations are selected in each iteration.

Table: Core Components of an Active Learning Framework for Drug Combination Discovery

Component	Description	Examples
Molecular Encoding	Numerical representations of drugs and cellular context	Morgan fingerprints, MAP4, MACCS, Gene expression profiles [21]
Predictive Model	AI algorithm that predicts synergy scores	DeepSynergy, DeepDDS, Graph Neural Networks, Random Forest [39] [21]
Query Strategy	Algorithm for selecting informative samples	Uncertainty sampling, Diversity-based, Hybrid approaches [7] [21]
Experimental Protocol	Methods for validating predictions	High-throughput combination screening, Dose-response matrix assays [40] [41]

The following diagram illustrates the iterative active learning workflow for drug combination screening:

Key Active Learning Query Strategies

Active learning strategies for drug combination discovery can be categorized based on their fundamental selection principles, each with distinct strengths and limitations for navigating the synergistic search space. Uncertainty-based strategies prioritize samples where the model's predictions are most uncertain, typically focusing on drug pairs with predicted synergy scores near the classification threshold [42]. These methods are particularly effective early in the discovery process when the model has low confidence in large regions of the chemical space.

Diversity-based approaches select samples that maximize coverage of the chemical or biological space, ensuring that the training data represents diverse therapeutic mechanisms and structural classes [7]. These methods help prevent oversampling from localized regions and support better generalization across the entire combinatorial landscape. Expected model change strategies prioritize samples that are expected to most significantly alter the current model parameters, while representative sampling approaches focus on selecting instances that are most representative of the overall distribution of unlabeled data [42].

Hybrid strategies combine multiple principles, typically balancing exploration (diversity) and exploitation (uncertainty). For example, the RD-GS method combines representativeness and diversity, while other approaches integrate uncertainty with density-based weighting [7]. These hybrid methods have demonstrated particular effectiveness in drug combination discovery where synergistic pairs are rare and sparsely distributed throughout the chemical space.

Comparative Analysis of Active Learning Strategies

Performance Benchmarking Across Strategies

Rigorous evaluation of active learning strategies requires standardized benchmarking across multiple datasets and performance metrics. Recent comprehensive studies have compared the effectiveness of various query strategies in the context of drug discovery and materials science, providing valuable insights for selecting appropriate approaches for synergistic combination discovery.

Table: Performance Comparison of Active Learning Strategies in Regression Tasks

Strategy Type	Examples	Early-Stage Performance	Data Efficiency	Key Strengths
Uncertainty-Based	LCMD, Tree-based-R	High [7]	Moderate	Effective for rare synergy detection
Diversity-Based	GSx, EGAL	Moderate [7]	Lower	Broad space exploration
Hybrid Approaches	RD-GS	High [7]	High	Balanced exploration-exploitation
Representativeness	-	Moderate [42]	Moderate	Avoids outlier focus
Model Change	-	Variable [42]	Variable	Targets informative samples

In studies focused specifically on drug synergy detection, active learning frameworks have demonstrated remarkable efficiency. When applied to datasets like Oneil and ALMANAC, which contain only 3.55% and 1.47% synergistic pairs respectively, AL strategies can identify 60% of synergistic combinations by testing just 10% of the combinatorial space [21]. This represents an 82% reduction in experimental burden compared to random screening approaches.

Batch size selection significantly impacts AL performance in drug discovery applications. Smaller batch sizes generally yield higher synergy discovery rates, as they allow for more frequent model updates and refinement of the search strategy [21]. However, practical constraints often necessitate larger batches, making strategies that maintain effectiveness across batch sizes particularly valuable.

Domain-Specific Applications and Performance

The effectiveness of active learning strategies varies based on specific application contexts within drug combination discovery. In a recent large-scale study focused on pancreatic cancer, three independent research groups applied different machine learning approaches to predict synergistic combinations from a virtual library of 1.6 million possible pairs [39].

The NCATS team employed Random Forest and XGBoost models with Avalon and Morgan fingerprints, achieving an AUC of 0.78 ± 0.09 using a one-compound-out cross-validation scheme [39]. The University of North Carolina group implemented consensus modeling approaches that combined descriptor-based predictions with experimental IC50 values and mechanism-of-action information [39]. Overall, this collaborative effort identified 307 experimentally validated synergistic combinations against PANC-1 pancreatic cancer cells, demonstrating the practical impact of ML-guided approaches.

In another study focusing on ADMET and affinity prediction, novel batch active learning methods (COVDROP and COVLAP) significantly outperformed existing approaches across multiple datasets [43]. These methods use joint entropy maximization to select diverse and informative batches, considering both uncertainty and diversity through covariance matrices of model predictions.

Experimental Protocols and Methodologies

High-Throughput Combination Screening

The foundation of effective active learning for drug combination discovery relies on robust experimental protocols for generating training data and validating predictions. High-throughput screening of drug combinations typically employs either ray design (fixed ratio) or dose-response matrix designs [40].

In the ray design approach, drugs are combined at fixed ratios across a range of concentrations, typically using serial dilutions in DMSO followed by dilution in cell culture medium [41]. This design is efficient for initial screening but may miss synergistic interactions that occur at specific non-equimolar ratios. The dose-response matrix design, where both drugs are varied independently across a range of concentrations, provides more comprehensive information about the combination landscape but requires significantly more experimental resources [40].

A typical protocol involves seeding cancer cell lines in 384-well plates at optimized densities, allowing cells to attach overnight, followed by treatment with drug combinations for 48-72 hours [40] [41]. Cell viability is then assessed using assays such as CellTiter-Glo for ATP content (measuring metabolic activity) or CellTox Green for cytotoxicity [40]. For matrix designs, combination effects are typically evaluated using synergy scoring models such as Bliss independence, Loewe additivity, or Zero Interaction Potency (ZIP) [40].

Synergy Scoring and Validation Methods

Accurate quantification of drug synergy is essential for training effective active learning models. Multiple synergy scoring models have been developed, each with different assumptions and applications:

The Bliss independence model defines synergy as a combination effect greater than the expected effect if the drugs acted independently [40] [21]. It is calculated as: Bliss = EAB - (EA + EB - EA×EB), where EAB is the observed combination effect and EA, EB are the individual drug effects. The Loewe additivity model assumes similar drugs acting on the same pathway, with synergy occurring when the combination effect exceeds the expected effect if the drugs were the same entity [40]. The Highest Single Agent (HSA) model compares the combination effect to the better of the two individual drug effects [40]. The Zero Interaction Potency (ZIP) model combines elements of both Loewe and Bliss models, comparing the observed combination response to the expected response if the drugs did not interact [40].

Tools like SynergyFinder provide implementations of these popular synergy scoring models, enabling researchers to consistently quantify and interpret combination effects across different experimental designs [40]. For prospective validation of predicted synergistic combinations, secondary screens using full dose-response matrix designs are essential to confirm synergy across multiple concentration ratios and characterize the combination landscape in detail [41].

Research Reagent Solutions

Successful implementation of active learning for drug combination discovery requires carefully selected research reagents and computational tools. The following table details essential materials and their functions in the experimental and computational workflow:

Table: Essential Research Reagents and Tools for Drug Combination Screening

Category	Specific Items	Function	Examples/Suppliers
Cell Culture	Cancer cell lines	Disease models for screening	AGS, PANC-1, MDA-MB-468 [40] [41]
Viability Assays	CellTiter-Glo	ATP-based viability measurement	Promega [40] [41]
Cytotoxicity Assays	CellTox Green	Membrane integrity assessment	Promega [40]
Compound Management	Labcyte Echo 550	Acoustic dispensing of compounds	Beckman Coulter [40]
Automation	MultiFlo FX	Reagent dispensing for HTS	Beckman Coulter [40]
Synergy Scoring	SynergyFinder	Calculation of synergy scores	R package [40]
Molecular Features	Morgan fingerprints	Chemical structure representation	RDKit [39] [21]

Pathway Diagrams and Workflows

Signaling Pathways Targeted by Combination Therapies

Drug combinations often target complementary signaling pathways that cancer cells depend on for growth and survival. The following diagram illustrates key pathways frequently co-targeted in synergistic combination therapies:

Integrated Computational-Experimental Workflow

The most effective active learning frameworks for drug combination discovery seamlessly integrate computational and experimental components. The following diagram outlines a comprehensive workflow that has successfully identified synergistic combinations in real-world applications:

Active learning strategies represent a paradigm shift in synergistic drug combination discovery, offering systematic approaches to navigate vast combinatorial spaces with significantly reduced experimental resources. The comparative analysis presented in this guide demonstrates that while uncertainty-based and hybrid strategies generally show superior performance in early-stage discovery, the optimal approach depends on specific research contexts, available data, and constraints.

Future directions in this field include the development of more sophisticated query strategies that dynamically adjust the exploration-exploitation balance based on intermediate results, integration of multi-omics data to enhance feature representations, and implementation of transfer learning approaches to leverage knowledge across different disease contexts. As these methodologies continue to mature, active learning frameworks are poised to become indispensable tools for accelerating the discovery of effective combination therapies for cancer and other complex diseases.

The integration of advanced molecular encodings, including graph-based representations of chemical structures and biological networks, with robust experimental validation protocols will further enhance the efficiency of synergistic combination discovery. By continuing to refine these approaches, the scientific community can systematically address the combinatorial challenge inherent in drug combination discovery, ultimately delivering more effective treatments to patients in need.

Molecular and Cellular Feature Engineering for Predictive Performance

In the fields of drug discovery and materials science, the high cost and technical difficulty of acquiring labeled data significantly limits the scale and pace of data-driven research. Experimental synthesis and characterization demand expert knowledge, expensive equipment, and time-consuming procedures, making data-efficient machine learning (ML) methodologies not merely advantageous but essential [7]. Feature engineering—the process of creating informative molecular and cellular descriptors—serves as a critical foundation for predictive model performance. Concurrently, active learning (AL), an iterative ML strategy that selectively queries the most informative data points for labeling, has emerged as a powerful technique to minimize experimental costs [44] [1].

This guide objectively compares the performance of various active learning query strategies when applied to predictive modeling tasks rooted in engineered molecular and cellular features. The focus is on providing researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals with a clear comparison of experimental data and methodologies to inform their computational and experimental design choices.

Active Learning Query Strategies: A Comparative Analysis

Active learning operates through an iterative feedback process. It starts with a small set of labeled data, which is used to train an initial model. This model then evaluates a larger pool of unlabeled data and, based on a predefined query strategy, selects the most valuable instances to be labeled next by an "oracle" (e.g., a human expert or a physical experiment). These newly labeled samples are added to the training set, and the model is retrained, creating a cycle that continues until a stopping criterion is met, such as a performance target or an exhausted budget [44] [1]. The core of an AL system's efficiency lies in its query strategy.

The following workflow illustrates the generic active learning cycle and categorizes the core principles behind different query strategies:

Quantitative Performance Comparison of Query Strategies

Numerous benchmark studies have systematically evaluated the effectiveness of different AL query strategies across various domains. The table below summarizes key findings from large-scale benchmarks in materials science and anti-cancer drug discovery.

Table 1: Benchmark performance of active learning query strategies

Application Domain	Best-Performing Strategies	Performance Metrics & Results	Comparative Baseline
Materials Science Regression [7]	Uncertainty-driven (LCMD, Tree-based-R), Diversity-hybrid (RD-GS)	Early acquisition phase: Clearly outperformed geometry-only heuristics (GSx, EGAL) and random sampling. Data efficiency: Higher model accuracy with fewer labeled samples.	Random Sampling, Geometry-only heuristics (GSx, EGAL)
Anti-Cancer Drug Response Prediction [23]	Uncertainty-based, Diversity-based, Hybrid approaches	Hit identification: Significant improvement in early discovery of responsive treatments. Model performance: Improvement for some drugs compared to greedy sampling.	Random Sampling, Greedy Sampling
Pareto Multi-Objective Optimization [9]	Upper Confidence Bound (UCB)	Pareto Front Quality: Superior breadth and diversity. Predictive Accuracy: 93.81% for UTS, 88.49% for TE.	Expected Improvement (EI), Greedy Search (GS)
ADMET & Affinity Prediction [22]	COVDROP (Novel batch method)	Model Convergence: Rapid performance improvement with fewer iterations. Outperformed: k-Means, BAIT, and random selection on solubility, permeability, and affinity datasets.	k-Means, BAIT, Random Selection

A comprehensive benchmark study in materials science, which integrated AL with Automated Machine Learning (AutoML), tested 17 different AL strategies on small-sample regression tasks. The study found that early in the data acquisition process, uncertainty-driven strategies and diversity-hybrid methods clearly outperformed other approaches, selecting more informative samples and rapidly improving model accuracy [7]. As the volume of labeled data increases, the performance gap between strategies typically narrows, indicating diminishing returns from specialized AL querying [7].

In drug discovery, a comprehensive investigation of AL for anti-cancer drug response prediction demonstrated that most active learning strategies are more efficient than random selection for identifying effective treatments (hits). These strategies also showed an improvement in response prediction performance for some experimental settings compared to baseline methods [23].

Specialized domains like multi-objective optimization have also seen AL success. A study on heat treatment optimization for medium-Mn steel within a Pareto Active Learning (PAL) framework compared Expected Improvement (EI), Upper Confidence Bound (UCB), and Greedy Search (GS). The UCB-based approach produced a superior Pareto front and achieved high predictive accuracy for ultimate tensile strength (93.81%) and total elongation (88.49%) [9].

Finally, novel strategies designed for specific challenges continue to push performance boundaries. In deep batch active learning for drug discovery, a new method called COVDROP, which maximizes the joint entropy of a selected batch, consistently led to better performance more quickly compared to prior methods on various ADMET and affinity datasets [22].

Performance of Uncertainty Measurement Techniques

For classification tasks, a common and simple AL approach is uncertainty sampling, where the model queries the instances it is least certain about. However, "uncertainty" can be quantified in different ways, leading to variations in performance.

Table 2: Comparison of uncertainty sampling techniques for classification

Technique	Calculation Method	Intuition & Characteristic
Least Confidence [45]	(1 – P(most confident label)) × (N/(N-1))	Queries the instance for which the model's most confident prediction is the lowest. Simple and widely used.
Margin of Confidence [45]	1 – (P(most confident) – P(second most confident))	Focuses on the difference between the top two most confident predictions. Intuitively targets the decision boundary.
Ratio of Confidence [45]	P(most confident) / P(second most confident)	A variation on margin sampling, using the ratio between the top two probabilities.
Entropy [45]	– Σ (P(i) × log P(i))	Measures the overall "disorder" of the prediction distribution. High entropy indicates high uncertainty.

Experimental Protocols in Featured Studies

To ensure reproducibility and provide context for the data in the comparison tables, this section outlines the key experimental methodologies from the cited benchmarks.

• Data Setup: The study employed a pool-based AL framework on 9 materials formulation datasets. It began with a small initial labeled set (L = {(xi, yi)}{i=1}^l) and a large pool of unlabeled data (U = {xi}_{i=l+1}^n).
• Active Learning Loop: The process was iterative. In each cycle, an AutoML model was trained on the current labeled set (L). Then, a query strategy selected the most informative sample (x^) from (U). This sample was "labeled" (its target value (y^) was acquired), and added to (L): (L = L \cup {(x^, y^)}).
• Model Training & Evaluation: An AutoML system was used in each iteration, which automatically handled model selection, hyperparameter tuning, and data preprocessing. The training and test sets were split in an 80:20 ratio, and 5-fold cross-validation was used within the AutoML workflow. Model performance was tracked using Mean Absolute Error (MAE) and the Coefficient of Determination ((R^2)).

• Goal: To build drug-specific models predicting the response of cancer cell lines to a specific drug, with the dual aims of improving model performance and identifying effective treatments (hits) early.
• Data Source: The analysis was conducted using the Cancer Therapeutics Response Portal v2 (CTRP), which includes data on 494 drugs and 812 cell lines.
• Evaluated Strategies: The study compared multiple sampling techniques:
  • Random: Baseline method.
  • Greedy: Selects samples with the most desirable predicted property (e.g., lowest predicted IC50).
  • Uncertainty: Selects samples where the model's prediction is most uncertain.
  • Diversity: Selects a diverse set of samples to cover the feature space.
  • Hybrid: Combined uncertainty/diversity with greedy sampling, in both sampling-based and iteration-based modes.
• Evaluation Metrics: Performance was assessed based on 1) the number of identified hits (selected experiments validated as responsive), and 2) the predictive performance (e.g., RMSE, AUC) of the response model trained on the selected data.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Key Research Reagents & Computational Solutions

The experimental and computational workbench for feature engineering and active learning relies on a suite of key resources. The following table details essential "research reagents," including datasets, molecular descriptors, and software tools, that are foundational to this field.

Table 3: Essential research reagents and tools for molecular feature engineering and active learning

Reagent / Solution	Type	Function & Application
MACCS Keys [46]	Molecular Fingerprint	A substructure key-based fingerprint used for similarity searching, QSAR modeling, and defining the pharmacological space of proteins and ligands.
ECFP (Extended Connectivity Fingerprint) [46]	Molecular Fingerprint	Encodes local neighborhoods around each atom and bonding connectivity. Widely applied in QSAR, virtual screening, and predicting chemical reactivity.
Conjoint Fingerprint [46]	Hybrid Molecular Descriptor	Combines two supplementary fingerprints (e.g., MACCS and ECFP) to capture more comprehensive molecular information, improving predictive performance in deep learning models.
GeneLab Omics Database [47]	Genomic Dataset	A collection of spaceflight exposure and analogous ground-based omics experiments. Used to engineer features for predicting differentially expressed genes (DEGs).
CTRP (Cancer Therapeutics Response Portal) [23]	Drug Screening Dataset	A large cell line drug screening dataset containing drug response data. Serves as a benchmark for developing and testing active learning strategies in anti-cancer drug discovery.
AutoML Systems [7]	Computational Tool	Automates the process of model selection, hyperparameter tuning, and preprocessing. Integrated with AL to create robust pipelines, especially valuable when manual tuning is impractical.
DeepChem [22]	Software Library	A popular open-source toolkit for deep learning in drug discovery, chemistry, and biology. Provides implementations for molecular featurization and model building.

The strategic combination of molecular descriptors is a powerful form of feature engineering. As demonstrated in a study on predicting logP and binding affinity, building a conjoint fingerprint by combining two supplementary fingerprints (like MACCS and ECFP) yielded improved predictive performance across multiple machine learning and deep learning methods, sometimes even outperforming a consensus model [46]. This approach harnesses the complementarity of different descriptor types.

The integration of sophisticated molecular feature engineering with strategic active learning querying presents a robust pathway to accelerating scientific discovery. Evidence from benchmark studies across materials science and drug discovery consistently shows that uncertainty-driven and hybrid diversity-uncertainty strategies typically outperform random sampling and other baselines, especially in the critical early stages of a project when labeled data is scarce.

The choice of an optimal AL strategy is not universal; it is influenced by the specific domain, the nature of the data, and the end goal (e.g., maximizing model accuracy vs. rapidly identifying "hit" compounds). However, the empirical data clearly indicates that moving beyond naive random or greedy sampling can lead to significant savings in experimental time and resources. As the field progresses, the synergy between automated machine learning (AutoML), advanced feature engineering, and principled active learning will continue to be a cornerstone of efficient and predictive computational research.

Identifying synergistic drug combinations is a promising strategy for treating complex diseases like cancer, particularly to overcome drug resistance. However, this process involves navigating an exceptionally large and costly combinatorial search space. The rarity of synergistic pairs—with large datasets like Oneil and ALMANAC reporting rates of only 3.55% and 1.47% respectively—makes exhaustive experimental screening impractical for most research laboratories [21]. Traditional machine learning models have improved synergy prediction, but their effectiveness is inherently limited by the need for large, labeled datasets. Active Learning (AL) has emerged as a powerful framework to address this bottleneck. This case study examines a landmark implementation of AL that demonstrated the ability to identify 60% of synergistic drug pairs by experimentally exploring just 10% of the combinatorial space, offering a 82% reduction in experimental time and materials [21]. We will objectively analyze this strategy's methodology, performance, and position within the broader landscape of AL query strategies.

Experimental Protocol & Workflow

The reviewed study established a rigorous, iterative AL framework designed to maximize the discovery rate of synergistic drug pairs while minimizing experimental burden [21]. The core workflow is illustrated below.

Core AL Cycle and Key Components

• Initialization: The process began with a small, initially labeled dataset of drug pairs and their experimentally measured synergy scores [21].
• Model Training: A machine learning model, specifically a Multi-Layer Perceptron (MLP), was trained on the available labeled data. This model used Morgan fingerprints for molecular representation and gene expression profiles of target cell lines as input features [21].
• Query Strategy: The trained model evaluated all unlabeled drug pairs in the pool. A key step involved an exploration-exploitation trade-off to select the most "informative" pairs for the next round of testing. This often prioritized pairs where the model was most uncertain or predicted to have high synergy potential [21].
• Experimental Validation & Model Update: The selected top candidates were tested experimentally in the lab. Their newly acquired synergy scores were then added to the labeled training pool, and the model was retrained. This cycle repeated sequentially [21].

Dataset and Model Configuration

The study was benchmarked on the Oneil dataset, which comprises 15,117 measurements of 38 drugs across 29 cell lines [21]. A drug pair was defined as synergistic if its experimental LOEWE synergy score was greater than 10 [21]. The model's performance was quantified using the Precision-Recall Area Under Curve (PR-AUC) score, which is suitable for imbalanced datasets where synergies are rare [21].

Comparative Performance of Active Learning Strategies

The promise of AL is not universal; its success is highly dependent on the chosen query strategy. The following table summarizes the core quantitative results from the featured case study and situates it against other established AL strategies from recent literature.

Table 1: Performance Comparison of Active Learning Strategies in Scientific Discovery

Application Domain	AL Strategy / Framework	Key Performance Metric	Result	Experimental Efficiency
Drug Synergy Screening (This Case Study) [21]	Exploration-Exploitation with MLP	Synergy Yield	60% of synergies found	10% of search space explored; 82% cost saving
Materials Science Regression [7]	Uncertainty-Driven (LCMD, Tree-based-R)	Model Accuracy (Early Stage)	Clearly outperformed random sampling and geometry-based heuristics	High data efficiency in early acquisition phases
Materials Science Regression [7]	Diversity-Hybrid (RD-GS)	Model Accuracy (Early Stage)	Clearly outperformed random sampling and geometry-based heuristics	High data efficiency in early acquisition phases
Heat Treatment Optimization [9]	Pareto AL with Upper Confidence Bound (UCB)	Predictive Accuracy / Hypervolume	UTS: 93.81%, TE: 88.49% / Superior Pareto front	Identified optimal conditions with minimal experiments
Multi-Process Alloy Design [48]	Process-Synergistic AL (PSAL)	Ultimate Tensile Strength (UTS)	459.8 MPa (GC+T6), 220.5 MPa (GC+HE)	Achieved in 3 and 1 iteration(s), respectively

Analysis of Strategy Performance

The data reveals that while the specific strategy in the case study was highly effective, other query principles are robust across domains.

• Uncertainty and Hybrid Methods Dominate in Early Stages: In materials science regression tasks, uncertainty-driven (e.g., LCMD) and diversity-hybrid (e.g., RD-GS) strategies significantly outperformed random sampling and geometry-only heuristics when labeled data was scarce [7]. This aligns with the exploration-exploitation strategy's success in the drug synergy case.
• UCB Excels in Multi-Objective Optimization: For the complex task of simultaneously optimizing steel strength (UTS) and ductility (TE), the Upper Confidence Bound (UCB) strategy within a Pareto Active Learning (PAL) framework produced a superior Pareto front [9]. This demonstrates the effectiveness of confidence-bound methods for balancing competing objectives.
• Strategy Convergence with Ample Data: As the volume of labeled data increases, the performance gap between different AL strategies and random sampling narrows, indicating diminishing returns from advanced AL under these conditions [7].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Key Research Reagents & Solutions

Implementing an AL-driven discovery pipeline requires a combination of computational and experimental resources. The following table details the essential components as used in the featured case study and related fields.

Table 2: Essential Research Reagents and Solutions for AL-Driven Discovery

Item	Function / Role in Active Learning	Example/Specification
DrugComb Database [21]	Meta-database providing aggregated drug combination screening data for pre-training and benchmarking.	Includes data from 34 campaigns, 8397 drugs, 2320 cell lines [21].
Morgan Fingerprints [21]	Numerical molecular representation encoding chemical structure; used as input feature for the AI model.	Also called Circular Fingerprints [21].
Gene Expression Profiles [21]	Genomic features describing the cellular environment; critical context for predicting cell-specific synergy.	Profiles from GDSC database; study found ~10 genes sufficient [21].
LOEWE Synergy Score [21]	Reference standard metric for quantifying the synergistic effect of a drug combination in experimental validation.	Threshold >10 defined synergy in the Oneil dataset [21].
Conditional Generative Model [49] [48]	Generates novel candidate molecules or material compositions (e.g., alloys) for evaluation, expanding beyond fixed libraries.	Conditional Wasserstein Autoencoder (c-WAE) used in materials design [48].
Physics-Based Oracle [49]	Computational method (e.g., molecular docking) used to pre-screen and prioritize generated candidates before costly experiments.	Docking scores used as an affinity oracle in generative AI workflows [49].

Implementation: Query Strategies and the Exploration-Exploitation Trade-off

The core intelligence of any AL system lies in its query strategy, which determines which data points to label next. The "exploration-exploitation" trade-off is central to this process. The following diagram illustrates how a top-performing strategy balances these competing goals.

Key Query Strategy Principles

• Uncertainty Sampling: This strategy queries the instances for which the model's prediction is least certain. In classification, this can be measured by entropy or margin, while in regression, methods like Monte Carlo Dropout are used to estimate predictive variance [7] [24]. The goal is to improve the model by adding labels for the most ambiguous cases.
• Diversity Sampling: To avoid selecting redundant data points, diversity sampling aims to choose a representative subset of the unlabeled data. This is often achieved through clustering techniques (e.g., K-means) and selecting points near cluster centroids [24].
• Expected Model Change: This approach selects data points that would cause the most significant change to the current model parameters if their labels were known, effectively seeking the most informative examples [7].
• Hybrid Strategies: The most effective strategies, as seen in the case study and benchmarks, often combine principles. For example, a strategy might first shortlist uncertain candidates and then filter them for diversity to ensure broad coverage of the chemical space [21] [7].

A critical finding from the drug synergy case study was the profound impact of batch size. The synergy yield ratio was observed to be higher with smaller batch sizes, and dynamic tuning of the exploration-exploitation strategy could further enhance performance [21].

This performance comparison demonstrates that Active Learning is a mature and powerful paradigm for accelerating scientific discovery in resource-constrained environments. The featured case study provides a compelling benchmark, proving that strategic AL can recover the majority of synergistic drug pairs with a fraction of the conventional experimental cost [21]. The evidence shows that no single query strategy is universally superior; instead, the optimal choice depends on the specific task, data landscape, and stage of the discovery campaign. Future research is moving towards automating strategy selection [50] and more deeply integrating generative models to create, rather than just select, promising candidates [49] [48]. For researchers in drug development and materials science, embedding these intelligent, iterative AL frameworks into the Design-Make-Test-Analyze cycle is no longer a speculative advantage but a proven method for dramatically increasing R&D efficiency.

Integration with Automated Machine Learning (AutoML) for Robust Workflows

In data-driven fields like materials science and drug discovery, acquiring labeled data is often the most significant bottleneck due to the high costs of experiments and expert annotation [7]. This challenge has spurred interest in two complementary approaches: Automated Machine Learning (AutoML) and Active Learning (AL). AutoML automates the end-to-end process of applying machine learning, handling tasks from data preprocessing to model selection and hyperparameter tuning, thereby making advanced ML accessible to non-experts and accelerating model development [51] [52]. Simultaneously, AL is a supervised approach that strategically selects the most informative data points for labeling, iteratively improving model performance while minimizing labeling costs [1].

The integration of AutoML with AL creates a powerful synergy for building robust workflows. AutoML ensures that at each iteration of the AL cycle, an optimally configured model is used to evaluate and select samples. This is crucial because in a traditional AL setting, the surrogate model is static, whereas in an AutoML-AL pipeline, the underlying model can change dynamically as the data pool grows and changes [7]. This combination is particularly valuable in scientific domains such as pharmaceuticals, where it enhances the efficiency, accuracy, and success rates of research while shortening development timelines and reducing costs [53] [49].

Experimental Protocols for Benchmarking Active Learning Strategies within AutoML

To objectively evaluate the performance of different AL strategies within AutoML frameworks, rigorous experimental protocols are essential. The following methodology, derived from a comprehensive benchmark study, outlines a standardized approach for such comparisons [7].

Pool-Based Active Learning Framework

The benchmark operates in a pool-based AL scenario tailored for regression tasks, which are common in scientific applications like predicting material properties or compound affinity. The process initiates with a small set of labeled samples (L = {(xi, yi)}{i=1}^l) and a larger pool of unlabeled data (U = {xi}_{i=l+1}^n). The core AL cycle involves these steps [7]:

• Initial Sampling: A small number of samples ((n_{init})) are randomly selected from the unlabeled pool (U) to form the initial labeled dataset (L).
• Model Training: An AutoML model is trained on the current labeled set (L). The training incorporates automatic dataset splitting (typically an 80:20 train-test split) and uses 5-fold cross-validation for robust validation within the AutoML workflow.
• Query Strategy Application: The trained AutoML model is used to score all samples in the unlabeled pool (U) based on a specific AL query strategy (e.g., an uncertainty-based or diversity-based method).
• Sample Selection and Annotation: The most informative sample ((x^)) is selected from (U), and its target value ((y^)) is acquired (simulating human annotation or a costly experiment).
• Dataset Update and Iteration: The newly labeled sample ((x^, y^)) is added to (L) and removed from (U). The process repeats from step 2, with the AutoML model being retrained on the expanded dataset.

This cycle continues for a pre-defined number of rounds, and the model's performance is tracked at each step to measure the learning trajectory [7].

Evaluated Active Learning Query Strategies

The benchmark study systematically evaluated 17 different AL strategies, which can be categorized based on their underlying principles [7]:

• Uncertainty Estimation: These strategies select data points where the model's prediction is most uncertain. Techniques include Least Confidence Margin (LCMD) and Tree-based Uncertainty (Tree-based-R). For regression tasks, uncertainty is often estimated using methods like Monte Carlo Dropout to generate a distribution of predictions [7].
• Diversity-based Sampling: These methods aim to select a diverse set of samples to ensure the training data broadly covers the input space. Examples include GSx and EGAL [7].
• Hybrid Strategies: These combine multiple principles, such as uncertainty and diversity, to balance exploration and exploitation. An example is RD-GS [7].
• Other Principles: The benchmark also included strategies based on Expected Model Change Maximization (EMCM) and Representativeness [7].
• Baseline: A Random-Sampling baseline, which selects points at random from the unlabeled pool, is included as a reference point for comparison.

Performance Metrics and Evaluation

Model performance is evaluated using standard regression metrics at each acquisition step to facilitate comparison across strategies [7] [54]:

• Mean Absolute Error (MAE): The average of the absolute differences between predicted and actual values. It is robust and easily interpretable, with lower values indicating better performance [54].
• Coefficient of Determination (R²): Measures the proportion of the variance in the target variable that is predictable from the features. It ranges from -∞ to 1, with values closer to 1 indicating that the model explains a greater portion of the variance [54].

The key to the evaluation is comparing how quickly each strategy reduces these error metrics (or increases R²) as the size of the labeled dataset grows, thereby measuring data efficiency.

The following workflow diagram illustrates this integrated AL and AutoML benchmarking process:

Comparative Performance of Active Learning Strategies

A comprehensive benchmark study on materials science regression tasks provides critical experimental data for comparing the performance of various AL strategies within an AutoML framework. The study tested 17 strategies and a random baseline across 9 different datasets typical of the field [7].

Performance Comparison of Key AL Strategies

The table below summarizes the performance characteristics of the main categories of AL strategies as identified in the benchmark:

Table 1: Comparative Performance of Active Learning Strategies in AutoML Workflows

Strategy Category	Example Methods	Early-Stage Performance (Data-Scarce)	Late-Stage Performance (Data-Rich)	Key Characteristics
Uncertainty-Based	LCMD, Tree-based-R [7]	Clearly outperforms random baseline and geometry heuristics [7]	Converges with other methods [7]	Selects points where model prediction is most uncertain; highly data-efficient initially [7]
Diversity-Hybrid	RD-GS [7]	Clearly outperforms random baseline and geometry heuristics [7]	Converges with other methods [7]	Balances uncertainty with a diversity of selected samples; robust performance [7]
Geometry-Only Heuristics	GSx, EGAL [7]	Underperforms compared to uncertainty and hybrid methods [7]	Converges with other methods [7]	Relies on feature space structure; less effective at identifying informative samples early on [7]
Random Sampling	Random [7]	Serves as a baseline; lower performance than top strategies [7]	Converges with other methods [7]	Provides a lower bound for performance; no intelligent selection [7]

Analysis of Benchmark Results

The experimental data reveals several key insights for researchers building robust AutoML-AL workflows:

• Critical Importance of Early-Stage Performance: The primary advantage of advanced AL strategies is realized in the early, data-scarce phase of the learning process. The benchmark shows that uncertainty-driven and diversity-hybrid strategies "clearly outperform" simpler heuristics and random sampling at this stage by selecting more informative samples [7]. This is when intelligent data selection provides the highest return on investment regarding labeling cost versus model improvement.
• Diminishing Returns and Strategy Convergence: As the size of the labeled set grows, the performance gap between different strategies narrows significantly. The study notes that "as the labeled set grows, the gap narrows and all 17 methods converge, indicating diminishing returns from AL under AutoML" [7]. This implies that for projects with large data budgets, the choice of AL strategy may become less critical over time.
• Robustness to Model Dynamics: A key finding is that strategies like LCMD, Tree-based-R, and RD-GS remain effective even when the underlying AutoML model is dynamic. In an AutoML pipeline, the model family (e.g., switching from linear regressors to tree-based ensembles) can change across iterations as the AutoML optimizer seeks the best performance. The success of these strategies demonstrates their robustness to such changes in the hypothesis space [7].

Case Studies in Scientific Research

The integration of AutoML with AL is proving its value in real-world scientific applications, from optimizing materials to designing novel pharmaceuticals.

Heat Treatment Optimization in Materials Science

A recent study successfully applied a Pareto Active Learning (PAL) framework to optimize the multi-step heat treatment process for medium-Mn steel, a complex multi-objective problem aiming to maximize both Ultimate Tensile Strength (UTS) and Total Elongation (TE). The study systematically compared three query strategies within the PAL framework [9]:

• Upper Confidence Bound (UCB)
• Expected Improvement (EI)
• Greedy Search (GS)

The UCB-based approach produced a superior Pareto front with greater breadth and diversity of solutions. When experimentally validated, the optimal model identified using UCB demonstrated high predictive accuracy, achieving 93.81% for UTS and 88.49% for TE. This case highlights how a well-chosen AL strategy can efficiently guide physical experiments to optimal conditions with minimal iterations [9].

Generative AI for Drug Design

In drug discovery, a novel workflow merged a generative Variational Autoencoder (VAE) with a physics-based Active Learning framework to design new drug molecules for targets CDK2 and KRAS. The workflow featured two nested AL cycles [49]:

• Inner AL Cycle: Used chemoinformatics oracles (e.g., drug-likeness, synthetic accessibility) to filter generated molecules.
• Outer AL Cycle: Used molecular docking simulations (a physics-based affinity oracle) to select molecules with the best binding scores.

The process refined the generative model by iteratively feeding back the most promising candidates. This integrated approach successfully generated novel, diverse, and synthesizable molecules. For CDK2, the workflow led to the synthesis of 9 molecules, 8 of which showed in vitro activity, including one with nanomolar potency. This demonstrates a practical and effective fusion of generative AI, AL, and physics-based simulation for a high-impact scientific problem [49].

The following diagram illustrates the structure of this sophisticated generative AI and active learning workflow:

Essential Research Reagents and Computational Tools

Building and evaluating integrated AutoML and AL workflows requires a suite of computational tools and frameworks. The following table acts as a "Scientist's Toolkit," detailing key resources referenced in the studies.

Table 2: Research Reagent Solutions for AutoML and Active Learning Workflows

Tool/Framework	Type	Primary Function	Relevance to AutoML-AL Workflows
Auto-sklearn [52]	Open-source Library	Automated model selection & hyperparameter tuning.	Provides a robust, meta-learning-enhanced AutoML backend for the AL loop; ideal for tabular data.
H2O.ai AutoML [52]	Open-source Platform	Automated training of multiple models (GBM, Deep Learning, etc.).	Offers scalable, ensemble-driven AutoML suitable for large datasets in AL iterations.
Google Cloud AutoML [51]	Cloud-based Platform	Training high-quality custom models with minimal ML expertise.	Enables building and deploying AL-powered models without managing infrastructure, via a user-friendly interface.
Monte Carlo Dropout [7]	Technical Method	Estimating predictive uncertainty in neural networks.	A key technique for implementing uncertainty-based query strategies in AL for regression tasks.
VAE (Variational Autoencoder) [49]	Model Architecture	Generating novel molecular structures from a learned latent space.	Serves as the generative engine in advanced AL workflows for de novo molecular design.
SHAP (SHapley Additive exPlanations) [9]	Analysis Tool	Interpreting model predictions and feature importance.	Provides post-hoc interpretability for models trained via AutoML-AL, validating learned structure-property relationships.
Molecular Docking (e.g., PELE) [49]	Physics-based Simulator	Predicting binding affinity and poses of small molecules to a target protein.	Acts as a high-fidelity, physics-based "oracle" for evaluating candidates in AL cycles for drug discovery.

The integration of Automated Machine Learning with Active Learning represents a significant leap forward for building robust, data-efficient workflows in scientific research. Experimental benchmarks clearly indicate that while all strategies eventually converge with sufficient data, the choice of AL query strategy is critical in the early, resource-constrained stages of a project. Uncertainty-based and hybrid strategies like LCMD and RD-GS consistently deliver superior initial performance by effectively guiding the AutoML model to the most informative data points.

The presented case studies in materials optimization and drug discovery confirm the practical viability of this integration. They demonstrate that AutoML-AL workflows can successfully navigate complex, real-world design spaces, leading to experimentally validated outcomes like superior alloy properties and novel bioactive molecules. As these methodologies continue to mature, their combined use is poised to become a standard practice for accelerating discovery and innovation across scientific domains, from the lab to the clinic.

Optimizing Active Learning Performance: Batch Sizes, Trade-Offs, and Advanced Algorithms

In the resource-intensive field of drug discovery, active learning (AL) has emerged as a powerful machine learning approach to maximize information gain while minimizing experimental costs [1] [44]. At the heart of every effective AL strategy lies the fundamental trade-off between exploration (discovering new regions of the chemical space) and exploitation (refining the model around currently promising candidates). This guide provides a comparative analysis of how different AL query strategies manage this trade-off, featuring experimental data and protocols from recent studies to inform researchers and development professionals.

Core Query Strategies and Their Mechanisms

Active learning strategies are primarily characterized by how they select data points for labeling from an unlabeled pool. The following table summarizes the primary mechanisms and their focus within the exploration-exploitation spectrum.

Table 1: Fundamental Active Learning Query Strategies

Strategy	Primary Mechanism	Focus in Trade-Off	Key Metric
Uncertainty Sampling [55] [20]	Selects instances where the model's prediction confidence is lowest.	Exploitation	Entropy, Margin, Least Confidence
Query-by-Committee (QBC) [55] [20]	Selects instances where a committee of models shows maximal disagreement.	Exploitation	Vote Entropy, KL Divergence
Diversity Sampling [7] [55]	Selects instances to maximize coverage and minimize redundancy in the dataset.	Exploration	Clustering, Distance to Centroids
Expected Model Change [55]	Selects instances expected to cause the largest change in the model parameters.	Exploitation	Gradient Norm
Hybrid Methods [22] [55]	Combines elements, e.g., selecting uncertain instances that are also diverse.	Balanced	Custom (e.g., Joint Entropy)

The following workflow diagram illustrates how these strategies are integrated into a standard pool-based active learning cycle, which is common in drug discovery pipelines [1] [24].

Comparative Performance in Drug Discovery Applications

The effectiveness of AL strategies is ultimately determined by empirical performance. Recent benchmarking studies across various drug discovery tasks provide quantitative evidence for making informed choices.

Table 2: Benchmarking Active Learning Strategies on Regression Tasks in Materials Science [7]

Strategy Type	Example Strategies	Early-Stage Performance (MAE/R²)	Late-Stage Performance	Key Finding
Uncertainty-Driven	LCMD, Tree-based-R	Clearly outperforms baseline	Converges with other methods	Most effective when data is scarce.
Diversity-Hybrid	RD-GS	Clearly outperforms baseline	Converges with other methods	Good balance of exploration.
Geometry-Only	GSx, EGAL	Similar or worse than baseline	Converges with other methods	Less informative for initial sampling.
Baseline	Random-Sampling	(Reference)	(Reference)	All advanced strategies converge to similar performance once the labeled set is large enough.

Table 3: Performance in Preclinical Anti-Cancer Drug Screening (Hit Identification) [23]

Sampling Approach	Category	Relative Hit Identification Efficiency	Notes
Uncertainty-Based	Exploitation	Significant improvement over Random	Targets model's ambiguous regions.
Diversity-Based	Exploration	Significant improvement over Random	Broadly covers the cell line feature space.
Hybrid Approaches	Balanced	Significant improvement over Random	Combines strengths of multiple strategies.
Greedy	Exploitation	Baseline for hit identification	Selects candidates predicted to be most active.
Random	N/A	(Reference)	Used as a baseline for comparison.

A novel approach in the field is the use of batch-active learning methods designed for deep learning models, which explicitly manage the trade-off by maximizing the joint entropy of a selected batch.

Table 4: Evaluation of Deep Batch Active Learning Methods on ADMET Tasks [22]

Method	Type	Key Mechanism	Relative Performance (RMSE)
COVDROP / COVLAP	Hybrid (Novel)	Maximizes joint entropy of batch using covariance matrix from MC Dropout/Laplace Approximation.	Best performance, fastest convergence.
BAIT	Hybrid	Probabilistic approach maximizing Fisher information.	Intermediate performance.
k-Means	Exploration	Selects batch representatives via clustering.	Intermediate performance.
Random	N/A	No active selection.	(Reference) Slowest convergence.

Detailed Experimental Protocols

To ensure reproducibility and provide context for the data, here are the detailed methodologies from key cited studies.

• Objective: To evaluate 17 AL strategies within an Automated Machine Learning (AutoML) framework for small-sample regression in materials science.
• Data: 9 datasets from materials formulation design.
• Workflow:
  • Initialization: Randomly sample n_init instances to create an initial labeled set.
  • Active Learning Loop:
    • An AutoML model is fitted on the current labeled data, automatically handling model selection and hyperparameter tuning.
    • The AL strategy selects the most informative sample(s) from the unlabeled pool.
    • The selected sample is "labeled" (its true value is revealed) and added to the training set.
• Evaluation: Performance is tracked using Mean Absolute Error (MAE) and Coefficient of Determination (R²) over multiple acquisition steps.

• Objective: To develop and evaluate novel batch AL methods (COVDROP, COVLAP) for ADMET and affinity prediction.
• Models: Graph neural networks and other deep learning architectures.
• Query Strategy (COVDROP/COVLAP):
  • Uncertainty Estimation: Compute a covariance matrix C between predictions on unlabeled samples using Monte Carlo Dropout (COVDROP) or Laplace Approximation (COVLAP).
  • Batch Selection: Use a greedy algorithm to select a batch B of samples such that the determinant of the sub-matrix C_B is maximized. This maximizes joint entropy, balancing individual uncertainty (exploitation) and batch diversity (exploration).
• Evaluation: Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) and model accuracy as a function of the number of iterative batches selected.

• Objective: To guide wet-lab experiments for discovering synergistic drug pairs using an active learning framework.
• AI Algorithm: The RECOVER model, which uses a multi-layer perceptron (MLP) to predict Bliss synergy scores from Morgan fingerprints and gene expression profiles.
• Workflow:
  • Pre-training: The model is pre-trained on a public dataset (e.g., Oneil).
  • Iterative Batch Selection:
    • The model selects a batch of drug combinations to test experimentally based on its predictions.
    • The experimental results (Loewe synergy scores) are obtained.
    • The model is updated with the new data.
• Key Finding: With dynamic tuning of the exploration-exploitation strategy, active learning could discover 60% of synergistic pairs by exploring only 10% of the combinatorial space, an 82% saving in experimental materials and time.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

The following table details key computational and experimental resources commonly used in active learning pipelines for drug discovery.

Table 5: Essential Research Reagents and Resources for Active Learning Experiments

Item / Resource	Function / Description	Example Use in Context
Cancer Cell Lines (e.g., from CCLE)	Biological model systems for in vitro drug response testing.	Used as the "oracle" in [23] to generate experimental drug response labels (e.g., IC₅₀).
Molecular Encodings (Morgan Fingerprints, MAP4)	Numerical representations of chemical structures for computational analysis.	Served as input features for AI algorithms predicting solubility, permeability, and synergy [22] [21].
Gene Expression Profiles (e.g., from GDSC)	Genomic signatures of cancer cell lines, capturing the cellular context.	Integrated with drug features to significantly improve synergy prediction models [21].
Public Drug Response Datasets (e.g., CTRP, ChEMBL)	Large-scale repositories of pre-existing drug screening data.	Used for pre-training models and as a source of initial labeled data in retrospective studies [22] [23].
DeepChem Library	An open-source toolkit for deep learning in drug discovery and chemistry.	Provides implementations of molecular featurizers, deep learning models, and dataset loaders [22].
AutoML Frameworks	Software that automates the process of model selection and hyperparameter tuning.	Used in [7] to ensure a robust and optimized surrogate model within the AL loop, independent of manual tuning.

The choice of an active learning strategy in drug discovery is highly context-dependent. Uncertainty-based methods excel at rapid model refinement with minimal data, making them ideal for exploitation and hit refinement [7] [23]. Diversity-based methods are superior for initial exploration and ensuring broad coverage of the chemical or genomic space [7]. For most real-world applications, hybrid strategies like COVDROP [22] or dynamic methods that adjust the exploration-exploitation balance based on batch size and data regime [21] offer the most robust performance. They systematically address the trade-off by jointly maximizing information gain and diversity, leading to faster convergence and significant resource savings in the journey from target identification to lead optimization.

In the field of synergistic drug combination discovery, active learning (AL) has emerged as a powerful strategy to navigate vast experimental spaces with limited resources. This guide objectively compares the performance of various AL sampling strategies, with a focused analysis on a critical yet often overlooked parameter: sampling batch size. Evidence from recent large-scale benchmarks and specialized drug discovery studies indicates that batch size significantly influences both the synergy yield (the rate of discovering synergistic drug pairs) and overall experimental efficiency. Contrary to the assumption that larger batches accelerate discovery, data reveals that smaller batch sizes often yield higher proportions of synergistic compounds early in the learning process. Furthermore, the optimal batch size is shown to be intertwined with the choice of query strategy and the specific goals of the campaign, whether optimizing for broad exploration (Pass@K) or targeted high-confidence predictions (Pass@1). This guide synthesizes quantitative experimental data, detailed methodologies, and practical recommendations to inform the design of efficient AL-driven discovery pipelines.

The screening of drug combinations for synergistic effects presents a formidable challenge due to the astronomical size of the combinatorial space and the low inherent frequency of synergistic pairs, which often constitute less than 5% of all possible combinations [21]. Active Learning (AL) addresses this by iteratively selecting the most informative samples for experimental testing, thereby refining a predictive model to guide subsequent selection cycles. This process involves a fundamental trade-off between exploration (selecting uncertain samples to improve the model) and exploitation (selecting samples predicted to be synergistic).

A key operational parameter in this process is the batch size—the number of samples selected and tested in each AL cycle. While a larger batch might seem efficient, it can dilute the "informativeness" of the selected set. This guide systematically compares how different batch sizes impact the critical outcomes of synergy discovery, providing a data-driven framework for researchers to optimize their experimental campaigns.

Comparative Performance of Batch Sizes

Synergy Yield and Experimental Efficiency

The primary metric for success in drug combination screening is the synergy yield—the percentage of tested pairs that are truly synergistic. A related metric is experimental efficiency—the proportion of the total combinatorial space that must be explored to find a given number of synergistic pairs.

Table 1: Impact of Batch Size on Synergy Discovery Efficiency [21]

Metric	Small Batch Size	Large Batch Size	Notes
Synergy Yield Ratio	Higher	Lower	The ratio of synergistic pairs discovered is maximized with smaller batches.
Total Experiments to Find 300 Synergies	~1,488	~8,253	Smaller batches saved ~82% of experimental effort in a simulated campaign.
Exploration of Combinatorial Space	10%	>60%	To find 60% of synergies, small batches explored only 10% of the space.

A study on synergistic drug discovery demonstrated that an AL framework using smaller batch sizes discovered 60% of all synergistic drug pairs (300 out of 500) by testing only 10% of the total combinatorial space. In contrast, a random screening strategy would require testing over 60% of the space to achieve the same result [21]. The study further observed that the synergy yield ratio was consistently higher when smaller batch sizes were employed, indicating a more efficient selection process [21].

Interaction of Batch Size with Query Strategy

The effectiveness of batch size is not independent; it interacts with the AL query strategy—the algorithm used to select the samples. Performance is often measured by Pass@1 (the model's ability to identify the single best candidate) and Pass@K (its ability to identify multiple high-quality candidates, supporting diverse exploration).

Table 2: Batch Size Interaction with Strategy and Goals [21] [22] [56]

Query Strategy	Recommended Batch Size	Impact on Performance	Optimal For
Uncertainty/Diversity Hybrid (e.g., DARS)	Small to Medium	Significantly improves Pass@K by ensuring diverse, informative samples are selected [56].	Broad exploration & finding multiple synergies
Uncertainty-Only (e.g., Entropy)	Small	Effective for general classification; outperforms more complex methods in low-data regimes [10].	General-purpose synergy screening
Greedy / Exploitation	Large	Can improve Pass@1 by providing more stable gradient estimates and reducing noise [56].	Optimizing for the single best candidate
BAIT / Fisher Information	Medium	Performance is mixed; can be outperformed by simpler diversity-aware methods [22].	Parameter-light environments

Research into Deep Batch Active Learning for drug discovery properties like ADMET and affinity found that methods prioritizing joint entropy (considering both uncertainty and diversity within a batch) consistently led to better model performance with fewer experiments. This approach, implemented in methods like COVDROP and COVLAP, explicitly maximizes the information content of a batch by rejecting highly correlated samples, a benefit that is more pronounced with carefully chosen, smaller batch sizes [22].

Conversely, in the context of Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) for complex reasoning, "aggressively scaling the breadth" (equivalent to batch size) was found to significantly enhance Pass@1 performance. This is because a larger batch size provides a more accurate gradient direction and sustains higher token-level entropy, preventing premature convergence [56]. This suggests that if the goal is to refine a model to pinpoint a single, high-confidence synergistic pair, a larger batch might be beneficial after an initial exploratory phase.

Experimental Protocols and Methodologies

To ensure the reproducibility of the findings cited in this guide, this section outlines the standard experimental protocols for benchmarking batch size in AL for drug discovery.

Benchmarking Workflow for AL Batch Size

The following diagram illustrates the standard pool-based AL workflow used to evaluate the impact of batch size.

Detailed Methodological Steps

• Dataset Curation:

  • Source: Public drug synergy databases like DrugComb or O'Neil are typically used. These datasets contain drug pairs, their representations (e.g., Morgan fingerprints, molecular graphs), cellular context features (e.g., gene expression profiles of cell lines), and corresponding synergy scores (e.g., Loewe, Bliss) [21].
  • Preprocessing: A threshold (e.g., Loewe > 10) is applied to define a binary label: synergistic vs. non-synergistic. The dataset is then split into an initial training set (e.g., 1-10%), a validation set, and a large pool of "unlabeled" data used for AL sampling [21] [57].

• Model Training and Active Loop:

  • Model Architecture: A predictive model is chosen, such as a Multi-Layer Perceptron (MLP), Graph Neural Network (GNN), or a pre-trained transformer. The model is tasked with predicting the synergy score or class based on drug and cell line features [21].
  • Active Learning Cycle: The model is first trained on the initial labeled set. Then, the query strategy selects a batch of B samples from the unlabeled pool. The "oracle" (simulated using held-out experimental data) provides the ground-truth labels for these B samples. This newly labeled batch is added to the training set, and the model is retrained. This cycle repeats until a predefined experimental budget is exhausted [7].

• Evaluation and Comparison:

  • Performance Tracking: For each AL cycle, model performance is evaluated on a held-out test set. Key metrics include Precision-Recall AUC (PR-AUC), as synergy prediction is a highly imbalanced problem, and the cumulative number of synergistic pairs discovered [21].
  • Batch Size Comparison: The entire AL process is run multiple times with identical settings except for the batch size B. The performance metrics across these runs are then compared to assess the impact of B on learning speed and synergy yield.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents & Materials

Table 3: Key Reagents and Computational Tools for AL-Driven Discovery

Item / Solution	Function in AL Workflow	Examples / Notes
Drug Combination Datasets	Provides the foundational data for training and benchmarking AL models.	DrugComb, O'Neil, ALMANAC [21].
Molecular Encodings	Converts chemical structures into numerical features for AI models.	Morgan Fingerprints, MAP4, Graph Representations [21].
Cellular Feature Data	Provides context on the biological environment, critical for accurate prediction.	Gene Expression profiles from GDSC [21].
Active Learning Frameworks	Software libraries that implement various query strategies and AL loops.	DeepChem, GeneDisco, custom implementations in PyTorch/TensorFlow [22].
Query Strategy Algorithms	The core logic for selecting the most informative batches.	Uncertainty Sampling (Entropy), DARS, BAIT, COVDROP/COVLAP [22] [56] [10].
High-Throughput Screening Platforms	The experimental "oracle" used to label selected drug combinations.	Automated platforms for in vitro testing of cell viability and synergy [21].

The empirical evidence consistently demonstrates that batch size is a pivotal hyperparameter in active learning for drug synergy discovery, with a direct and measurable impact on both synergy yield and experimental efficiency. The prevailing finding that smaller batch sizes enhance initial discovery rates and overall efficiency provides a clear heuristic for researchers designing screening campaigns where cost and time are constraints.

However, a nuanced approach is warranted. The optimal batch size is not absolute but is contingent upon the specific objectives of the campaign and the query strategy employed. Researchers focused on diverse exploration and maximizing the number of discovered synergies (Pass@K) should prioritize smaller batches coupled with diversity-aware query strategies. In contrast, those in the final stages of optimization, aiming for a high-confidence, single candidate (Pass@1), may benefit from increasing the batch size. Future research directions include the development of adaptive batch size strategies that dynamically adjust B throughout the AL process and a deeper investigation of these principles in more complex scenarios, such as multi-objective optimization of drug properties.

The optimization of complex, high-dimensional systems with limited data remains a significant challenge across scientific and engineering disciplines, from drug discovery to materials science. In this context, active learning (AL) and Bayesian optimization (BO) frameworks have emerged as powerful paradigms for guiding expensive experiments or simulations. Central to these frameworks are query strategies that balance the exploration of uncertain regions with the exploitation of known promising areas. This guide provides a performance comparison of two advanced strategies: the classic Upper Confidence Bound (UCB) principle and the more recent neural-surrogate-guided tree search, contextualized within active learning research for experimental design.

Upper Confidence Bound (UCB) and its Variants

The UCB strategy is a bandit-inspired algorithm that addresses the exploration-exploitation trade-off by selecting points that maximize a weighted sum of the predicted performance (exploitation) and the model's uncertainty (exploration). Formally, for a point ( x ), the acquisition function is often expressed as ( \alpha_{UCB}(x) = \mu(x) + \beta \sigma(x) ), where ( \mu(x) ) is the surrogate model's predicted mean, ( \sigma(x) ) is its predicted standard deviation, and ( \beta ) is a hyperparameter controlling the exploration weight [9] [58].

Variants like the Data-driven UCB (DUCB) integrate deeper neural surrogates and are adapted for tree-based search structures [59]. UCB has demonstrated particular strength in multi-objective optimization scenarios, such as optimizing heat treatment for steel, where it successfully identified Pareto-optimal conditions with high predictive accuracy for ultimate tensile strength (93.81%) and total elongation (88.49%) [9].

Neural-Surrogate-Guided Tree Search

This class of strategies leverages deep neural networks (DNNs) as surrogate models to guide a tree-based search through the complex solution space. A prominent example is the Deep Active Optimization with Neural-Surrogate-Guided Tree Exploration (DANTE) pipeline [59].

DANTE's key innovation lies in its two core mechanisms designed to overcome local optima:

• Conditional Selection: This mechanism prevents the search from deteriorating into low-value regions by persistently expanding from the current root node unless a leaf node demonstrates a higher DUCB value, thus encouraging progression toward more promising candidates [59].
• Local Backpropagation: Unlike traditional tree search methods that update the entire path, local backpropagation updates visitation counts and values only between the root and the selected leaf. This creates a local gradient that helps the algorithm escape local optima by preventing repeated visits to the same node [59].

Table 1: Core Components of Neural-Surrogate-Guided Tree Search

Component	Function	Mechanism	Impact
Deep Neural Surrogate	Approximates the complex, high-dimensional objective function.	Uses a DNN trained iteratively on available data.	Enables handling of nonlinear, high-dimensional spaces where classic models (e.g., GPs) struggle [59].
Tree Search	Structures the exploration of the search space.	Iteratively expands nodes (candidate solutions) from a root.	Allows systematic navigation of vast combinatorial or continuous spaces [59] [60].
Conditional Selection	Guides the choice of search direction.	Selects a new root node only if a leaf has a higher DUCB than the current root [59].	Mitigates the "value deterioration problem," reducing the data required to find the global optimum by up to 50% [59].
Local Backpropagation	Updates the search tree's internal state.	Propagates value and visit count updates only along the path from the root to the selected leaf [59].	Facilitates escape from local optima by generating a local DUCB gradient [59].

Hybrid and Enhanced Approaches

Recent research explores hybrid models that combine the strengths of different paradigms. The HOLLM (Hierarchical Optimization with Large Language Models) algorithm integrates spatial partitioning with LLM-based sampling [60]. It partitions the search space into subregions, each treated as a "meta-arm" in a bandit problem. An LLM is then prompted to generate high-quality candidate points within the selected promising subregions, overcoming the bias and sparsity issues of global LLM sampling and enabling more effective optimization in high-dimensional spaces [60].

Experimental Performance Comparison

Synthetic Benchmark Functions

Evaluations on synthetic functions with known global optima demonstrate the superior scalability and sample efficiency of neural-surrogate-guided methods.

Table 2: Performance on Synthetic Benchmarks

Strategy	Search Space Dimensionality	Sample Efficiency (Points to Optimum)	Success Rate (Global Optimum)	Key Findings
DANTE [59]	Up to 2,000	~500 points	80-100%	Consistently outperforms state-of-the-art (SOTA) methods, which are typically confined to ~100 dimensions and require more data [59].
Classic BO/AL Methods [59]	~100 (max effective)	>500 points	Lower than DANTE	Struggle with accurate generalization and slow convergence in high-dimensional, nonlinear spaces [59].
HOLLM [60]	8D Unit Hypercube	N/A	Matches or surpasses BO and trust-region methods	With partitioning, LLM sampling closely approximates uniform distribution (Hausdorff distance), substantially outperforming global LLM sampling [60].

Real-World Applications

In resource-intensive real-world problems, these strategies significantly accelerate discovery and improve solution quality.

Table 3: Performance in Real-World Applications

Application Domain	Strategy	Performance vs. SOTA / Baseline	Sample Efficiency
Drug Discovery: Virtual Screening [58]	UCB (with pretrained MoLFormer)	Identified 58.97% of top-50k compounds by docking score.	Screened only 0.6% of a 99.5-million compound library.
Alloy & Peptide Design [59]	DANTE	Achieved performance improvements of 9–33%.	Required fewer data points than SOTA methods.
Computer Science & Optimal Control [59]	DANTE	Outperformed other SOTA methods by 10–20% in benchmark metrics.	Used the same number of data points as other methods.
Neural Architecture Search (NAS) [61]	Surrogate (LM-based)	Achieved stronger final architecture performances.	Sped up evolutionary search significantly versus baseline.
Chip Design (Macro Placement) [62]	Evolutionary Optimization	Reduced wirelength by 9.3–10.8% vs. SOTA methods.	Achieved speedups of 2.8–7.8x over SOTA methods.

Detailed Experimental Protocols

To ensure reproducibility and provide context for the compared data, this section outlines the standard methodologies employed in benchmarking the aforementioned strategies.

Benchmarking Surrogate-Based Algorithms

A standardized approach for evaluating surrogate algorithms on expensive black-box functions, as implemented in the EXPObench library, involves [63]:

• Problem Selection: Using a diverse set of real-life expensive optimization problems (e.g., from engineering, hyperparameter tuning) instead of solely relying on synthetic benchmarks.
• Algorithm Comparison: Testing multiple surrogate algorithms (e.g., BO variants, neural-surrogate methods) on the same problem instances.
• Performance Metrics: Measuring metrics like simple regret, cumulative regret, and best-found value over the number of function evaluations.
• Resource Accounting: Explicitly considering the evaluation time of the objective function and the total computational budget available. Insights from such benchmarks indicate that the best algorithm depends heavily on the evaluation time and available budget, while the continuous or discrete nature of the space is less critical [63].

Active Learning for Molecule Virtual Screening

The MolPAL framework, which employs batched Bayesian optimization, is a common protocol for drug discovery [58]:

• Initialization: A small batch of molecules is randomly selected from an ultra-large library (e.g., 99.5 million compounds) and their docking scores are computed.
• Surrogate Model Training: A machine learning model (e.g., pretrained transformer, graph neural network) is trained on the (SMILES string, docking score) pairs.
• Candidate Acquisition: An acquisition function (e.g., Greedy, UCB) uses the surrogate's predictions to select the next batch of promising molecules for docking.
• Iteration: Steps 2 and 3 are repeated for a fixed number of iterations. Performance is evaluated by the percentage of top-k molecules retrieved after a fixed percentage of the library has been screened [58].

Neural-Surrogate-Guided Tree Search (DANTE)

The protocol for DANTE, as applied to complex systems, follows this workflow [59]:

• Initial Data Collection: Start with a small initial dataset (~200 points).
• Surrogate Training: Train a DNN surrogate model on the available data.
• Tree Exploration (NTE): Use the neural-surrogate-guided tree exploration to propose candidate solutions.
  • Conditional Selection decides whether to keep the current root or switch to a leaf.
  • Stochastic Rollout expands the tree via stochastic variations.
  • Local Backpropagation updates the tree statistics.
• Validation & Data Augmentation: The top candidates from the tree search are evaluated using the validation source (e.g., a real experiment or high-fidelity simulation), and the new data is fed back into the database.
• Iteration: Steps 2-4 are repeated with a small sampling batch size (≤20) until a stopping criterion is met.

Diagram 1: DANTE Experimental Workflow. The process iteratively uses a deep neural surrogate to guide a tree search for selecting expensive evaluations.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Key Research Reagents and Solutions

This section details essential computational tools and models used in the development and application of the advanced strategies discussed.

Table 4: Key Research Reagents and Solutions for Advanced Active Learning

Tool / Solution	Type	Primary Function in Research	Application Context
Deep Neural Network (DNN) Surrogate [59]	Machine Learning Model	Approximates high-dimensional, nonlinear objective functions as a "black box," replacing costly simulations/experiments during the search.	Complex systems optimization (DANTE).
Gaussian Process (GP) Surrogate [64]	Probabilistic Model	Provides a probabilistic distribution over the objective function, enabling uncertainty quantification for acquisition functions like UCB.	Standard Bayesian Optimization.
MoLFormer [58]	Pretrained Transformer Model	Acts as a highly accurate surrogate for molecular properties; encodes molecular SMILES strings into informative representations.	Drug discovery, molecular virtual screening.
Graph Neural Network (GNN) [58] [65]	Machine Learning Model	Learns representations from graph-structured data; used for node embedding and predicting properties of molecular graphs or network structures.	Molecular property prediction, approximate reachability queries.
EXPObench [63]	Benchmarking Library	Provides a standardized set of expensive black-box optimization problems for fair and reproducible comparison of surrogate algorithms.	General experimental benchmarking of optimization strategies.
Context-Free Grammar (CFG) [61]	Formal Grammar	Defines expressive, flexible search spaces for neural architecture search, allowing for the generation of novel and diverse architectures.	Neural Architecture Search (NAS).

Overcoming Data Scarcity and High-Dimensional Challenges in Complex Systems

In multiple scientific fields, the progression of data-driven research is often hampered by two interconnected challenges: data scarcity and high-dimensionality. Data scarcity arises when acquiring labeled data requires expert knowledge, expensive equipment, and time-consuming procedures, which is particularly common in domains like materials science and drug discovery [7]. High-dimensionality occurs when the number of features or variables describing each data point is massive, creating a "curse of dimensionality" that complicates model training and increases the risk of overfitting, especially when labeled examples are limited [66]. In combination, these challenges create a significant barrier to developing accurate predictive models.

Active Learning (AL) has emerged as a powerful machine learning paradigm to address these challenges by strategically selecting the most informative data points for labeling, thereby maximizing model performance while minimizing labeling costs [1]. This approach is particularly valuable in scientific domains where experimental validation remains resource-intensive. By iteratively selecting samples that are expected to provide the greatest learning benefit to the model, AL systems can dramatically reduce the number of experiments required to reach a target performance level [7] [67]. This guide provides a comprehensive comparison of active learning query strategies, focusing on their experimental performance in overcoming data scarcity and high-dimensional challenges across complex systems.

Active Learning Query Strategies: A Comparative Framework

Active learning strategies can be categorized based on their fundamental selection principles. Understanding these categories is essential for selecting the appropriate approach for specific research challenges.

Strategy Classification and Mechanisms

• Uncertainty Sampling: These approaches identify samples where the current model exhibits maximum prediction uncertainty. Common techniques include querying points with highest entropy, smallest margin between top predictions, or least confidence [1]. In regression tasks, uncertainty is often estimated using Monte Carlo dropout or other variance-based methods [7].

• Diversity-Based Sampling: These strategies aim to ensure selected samples represent the underlying data distribution by maximizing diversity in the labeled set. Geometry-only heuristics like GSx and EGAL fall into this category, though they may underperform compared to hybrid approaches [7].

• Expected Model Change Maximization (EMCM): This approach selects samples that would cause the greatest change to the current model parameters if their labels were known, effectively seeking data points with maximum potential impact [7].

• Representativeness-Driven Approaches: These methods select samples that best represent the overall structure of the data, often combining diversity with density estimation to avoid outliers [7].

• Hybrid Strategies: These combine multiple principles, such as uncertainty and diversity, to overcome limitations of individual approaches. RD-GS is one such hybrid method that has demonstrated strong performance in materials science applications [7].

The following workflow illustrates how these query strategies are typically implemented within an active learning framework:

Active Learning Workflow

Comparative Performance in Scientific Applications

Recent benchmarking studies have quantitatively evaluated active learning strategies across multiple scientific domains. The following table summarizes key performance comparisons:

Table 1: Performance Comparison of Active Learning Strategies in Materials Science Regression Tasks [7]

Strategy Category	Specific Methods	Early-Stage Performance	Late-Stage Performance	Data Efficiency
Uncertainty-Driven	LCMD, Tree-based-R	Clearly outperforms baseline	Converges with other methods	High
Diversity-Hybrid	RD-GS	Strong performance	Converges with other methods	High
Geometry-Only Heuristics	GSx, EGAL	Underperforms uncertainty methods	Converges with other methods	Moderate
Baseline	Random Sampling	Reference performance	Reference performance	Low

In drug discovery applications, active learning has demonstrated particular value in optimizing molecular property prediction and virtual screening. When applied to predict skin penetration of pharmaceuticals, AL achieved comparable model performance while utilizing only 25% of the data that would be required with random sampling [68]. This substantial reduction in experimental requirements highlights AL's potential to accelerate early-stage drug development while containing costs.

Another study focusing on multi-objective optimization of medium-Mn steel heat treatment compared query strategies within a Pareto Active Learning (PAL) framework. The Upper Confidence Bound (UCB) approach generated a Pareto front with superior breadth and diversity, quantified by hypervolume and coverage relation metrics, while achieving 93.81% and 88.49% predictive accuracy for ultimate tensile strength and total elongation, respectively [9]. This demonstrates how strategy selection can impact optimization outcomes in materials design.

Experimental Protocols and Methodologies

Implementing active learning effectively requires careful experimental design and methodological rigor. This section outlines standard protocols for benchmarking AL strategies in scientific applications.

Standard Benchmarking Framework

The following workflow illustrates the experimental methodology used in comprehensive AL evaluations:

AL Benchmarking Protocol

A standardized pool-based active learning framework is typically employed for regression tasks [7]. The process begins with an initial dataset containing a small set of labeled samples (L = {(xi, yi)}{i=1}^l) and a large pool of unlabeled samples (U = {xi}{i=l+1}^n), where (xi \in \mathbb{R}^d) is a d-dimensional feature vector and (y_i \in \mathbb{R}) is the continuous target value.

The benchmark process involves iterative sampling across multiple rounds, progressively expanding the labeled dataset and updating regression model performance in real-time [7]. Model performance is evaluated using metrics such as Mean Absolute Error (MAE) and Coefficient of Determination (R²), with each strategy's effectiveness compared against random sampling as a baseline.

Integration with Automated Machine Learning

A significant advancement in active learning methodology is its integration with Automated Machine Learning (AutoML). This combination is particularly valuable for addressing high-dimensional challenges because AutoML can automatically search and optimize between different model families (e.g., tree models, neural networks) and their corresponding hyperparameters [7]. This adaptability is crucial when dealing with complex, high-dimensional data where no single model architecture performs optimally throughout the entire active learning process.

In practice, the AutoML system handles model selection and hyperparameter tuning automatically at each iteration, while the active learning component focuses on data selection. This division of labor has been shown to maintain robust predictive performance despite limited data conditions [7]. The validation in these integrated workflows typically employs cross-validation with the number of folds set to 5 to ensure reliable performance estimation [7].

Domain-Specific Applications and Results

Active learning strategies have demonstrated significant success across various scientific domains facing data scarcity challenges. The implementation and optimal strategy selection often vary based on domain-specific constraints and objectives.

Materials Science and Engineering

In materials science, where experimental synthesis and characterization require expert knowledge and specialized equipment, active learning has proven particularly valuable. A comprehensive benchmark study evaluated 17 active learning strategies with AutoML across 9 materials formulation datasets, which are typically small due to high data acquisition costs [7].

The study revealed that early in the acquisition process, uncertainty-driven (LCMD, Tree-based-R) and diversity-hybrid (RD-GS) strategies clearly outperformed geometry-only heuristics (GSx, EGAL) and random sampling baseline [7]. These approaches selected more informative samples, leading to faster improvement in model accuracy during the critical early stages when labeled data is most scarce. As the labeled set grew, the performance gap narrowed and all methods eventually converged, indicating diminishing returns from active learning under AutoML frameworks [7].

In the optimization of heat treatment conditions for medium-Mn steel, researchers systematically compared three query strategies within a Pareto Active Learning framework: Expected Improvement (EI), Upper Confidence Bound (UCB), and Greedy Search (GS) [9]. The UCB-based approach produced a superior Pareto front with greater breadth and diversity, as quantified by hypervolume and coverage relation metrics. Experimental validation demonstrated high predictive accuracy (93.8% for UTS and 88.5% for TE), while microstructural analysis revealed the structure-property relationships underlying the mechanical performance [9].

Drug Discovery and Development

The pharmaceutical industry faces significant data scarcity challenges, particularly for novel drug targets or rare diseases. Active learning has emerged as one of several strategies to address data limitations in artificial intelligence-based drug discovery [68].

In this domain, AL operates through an iterative cycle where the model selects the most valuable data points from the total input data, queries experts to label these samples, and incorporates them into the training set to improve model performance while minimizing labeling costs [68]. This approach is particularly valuable for tasks such as predicting molecular properties, where experimental determination of characteristics like skin penetration can be time-consuming and expensive.

Compared to other data scarcity solutions in drug discovery—such as transfer learning, one-shot learning, multi-task learning, data augmentation, data synthesis, and federated learning—active learning offers the advantage of directly optimizing the experimental design process [68]. By strategically selecting which compounds to synthesize and test, pharmaceutical researchers can focus resources on the most promising candidates, significantly accelerating the drug discovery pipeline.

Biological Network Inference

Active learning approaches have also been successfully applied to infer biological networks, such as gene regulatory networks, from experimental data. In this context, AL addresses the challenge of designing experiments that effectively add to current knowledge by understanding the current state of knowledge and predicting what different experimental outcomes would conclude [67].

The modeling components in these applications typically involve mathematical representations of network structure, often mirroring believed causal relationships among biological entities [67]. Experiment selection criteria are generally based on entropy reduction, difference between experimental outcomes, or expected cost minimization. These approaches have been successfully evaluated using both simulated systems with known ground truth and real biological data from previously performed experiments [67].

Research Reagent Solutions

Implementing active learning approaches for data scarcity challenges requires both computational and experimental resources. The following table outlines key solutions utilized in the featured studies:

Table 2: Essential Research Reagents and Computational Tools for Active Learning Research

Resource Category	Specific Tools/Methods	Function/Purpose	Application Context
AutoML Frameworks	Automated model selection and hyperparameter optimization	Adapts model architecture to high-dimensional data	Materials science benchmarks [7]
Uncertainty Estimation	Monte Carlo dropout, variance reduction methods	Quantifies prediction uncertainty for sample selection	Regression tasks with limited data [7]
Generative Models	Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs)	Generates synthetic data to address data scarcity	Predictive maintenance [69]
Temporal Feature Extraction	LSTM neural networks	Captures sequential dependencies in time-series data	Predictive maintenance with temporal data [69]
Benchmarking Datasets	Materials formulation data, Condition monitoring data	Provides standardized evaluation platforms	Cross-strategy performance comparison [7] [69]
Multi-objective Optimization	Pareto Active Learning (PAL) frameworks	Balances competing objectives with minimal experiments	Materials optimization [9]

Based on the comprehensive comparison of active learning strategies across multiple domains, we can derive several evidence-based recommendations for researchers facing data scarcity and high-dimensional challenges:

• For early-stage projects with severe data scarcity: Uncertainty-driven approaches (LCMD, Tree-based-R) and diversity-hybrid methods (RD-GS) consistently outperform other strategies, making them ideal initial choices when labeled data is extremely limited [7].

• For multi-objective optimization problems: Upper Confidence Bound (UCB) strategies within Pareto Active Learning frameworks have demonstrated superior performance in identifying optimal conditions with minimal experiments, as evidenced in materials optimization studies [9].

• For high-dimensional data with complex feature relationships: Integrating Active Learning with AutoML provides robust performance by automatically adapting model selection and hyperparameters to the evolving labeled dataset [7].

• For domains with temporal dependencies: Incorporating LSTM networks or similar architectures for temporal feature extraction can enhance AL performance when dealing with time-series or sequential data [69].

The convergence of various AL strategies as labeled datasets grow suggests a hybrid approach may be optimal: starting with uncertainty-driven methods during extreme data scarcity, then transitioning to more diverse sampling strategies as more data becomes available. This adaptive approach maximizes the benefits of active learning throughout the research lifecycle while addressing the dual challenges of data scarcity and high-dimensionality in complex systems.

Dynamic Tuning of Query Strategies During the Acquisition Process

Active learning (AL) is a supervised machine learning approach that strategically selects the most informative data points for labeling to optimize the learning process while minimizing annotation costs [1]. Unlike traditional passive learning where models are trained on a pre-defined, static dataset, active learning operates through an iterative feedback process where the algorithm actively queries a human annotator to label the most valuable data points from an unlabeled pool [1] [44]. This approach is particularly valuable in domains like drug discovery and materials science where data labeling is expensive, requires expert knowledge, or involves time-consuming experimental procedures [7] [44].

The core component of any active learning system is its query strategy (also referred to as acquisition function), which is a function that scores unlabeled instances based on their expected informativeness [15]. The fundamental challenge in active learning is that the effectiveness of any single query strategy can vary significantly throughout the learning process, depending on factors such as the current model state, the composition of the remaining unlabeled data, and the specific stage of the acquisition process [7]. This observation has led to growing interest in dynamically tuning query strategies during the acquisition process to maintain optimal performance throughout the learning cycle.

Table 1: Core Query Strategy Types in Active Learning

Strategy Type	Primary Objective	Common Metrics/Approaches
Uncertainty Sampling	Select instances where model is most uncertain	Least confidence, margin sampling, entropy, query-by-committee [1] [70] [15]
Diversity Sampling	Ensure selected samples represent entire data distribution	k-center problem, representative sampling, clustering-based approaches [1] [15]
Expected Model Change	Choose instances that would most impact the model	Expected gradient length, expected error reduction [71] [15]
Hybrid Strategies	Balance multiple objectives for robust selection	Combining uncertainty with diversity or representativeness [70] [7]

The Case for Dynamic Tuning: Theoretical Foundations and Empirical Evidence

Performance Variability Across Learning Stages

Recent benchmark studies have demonstrated that the effectiveness of active learning strategies is highly dependent on the amount of labeled data already acquired. A comprehensive 2025 benchmark study published in Scientific Reports systematically evaluated 17 active learning strategies together with a random-sampling baseline across multiple materials science regression tasks [7]. The research revealed a crucial finding: performance gaps between strategies are most pronounced during early acquisition stages, with uncertainty-driven and diversity-hybrid strategies clearly outperforming other approaches when labeled data is scarce [7].

As the labeled set grows, the performance gap between different strategies narrows significantly, with most methods eventually converging toward similar performance levels [7]. This phenomenon indicates diminishing returns from specialized active learning strategies under conditions of abundant labeled data and suggests that the optimal query strategy may need to evolve throughout the acquisition process. The study found that early in the acquisition process, uncertainty-driven methods like LCMD and Tree-based-R, along with diversity-hybrid approaches like RD-GS, clearly outperformed geometry-only heuristics and random sampling [7].

Limitations of Static Query Strategies

Conventional active learning implementations typically maintain a fixed query strategy throughout the entire acquisition process. However, this static approach has several limitations. First, strategies that excel during initial learning stages may become suboptimal once sufficient data has been acquired. For instance, uncertainty sampling methods can sometimes select outliers or noisy examples that provide limited learning value once the model has grasped the core patterns in the data [70].

Second, different strategies are susceptible to different types of sampling bias. Uncertainty-focused methods risk missing rare patterns in the data, while diversity-based approaches typically require larger labeled starting sets to be effective [70]. As noted in research on uncertainty sampling, "using only one uncertainty metric increases the risk of missing edge cases" [70]. A static approach cannot adapt to correct for these inherent biases as more information about the data distribution becomes available.

Third, the optimal balance between exploration and exploitation typically shifts during the learning process. Early on, exploration (diversity) may be prioritized to understand the data distribution, while later stages may benefit from increased exploitation (uncertainty) to refine decision boundaries [7].

Experimental Evidence and Comparative Performance

Benchmark Studies in Materials Science

The 2025 benchmark study in Scientific Reports provides compelling experimental data on how different query strategies perform across acquisition stages [7]. Using an Automated Machine Learning (AutoML) framework, researchers evaluated multiple active learning strategies on materials science regression tasks with typically small datasets due to high data acquisition costs. The testing process involved iterative sampling in multiple rounds, progressively expanding the labeled dataset and updating the regression model's performance in real-time [7].

Table 2: Performance Comparison of Query Strategy Types Across Acquisition Stages

Strategy Type	Early-Stage Performance	Late-Stage Performance	Computational Cost	Key Limitations
Uncertainty-Based	High improvement per sample	Diminishing returns	Low to moderate	Risk of selecting outliers; may miss diverse examples [70] [7]
Diversity-Based	Moderate, requires initial representation	Stable performance	Moderate to high	Less effective with highly imbalanced data [70] [7]
Expected Model Change	High but computationally expensive	Maintains value longer	High	Often impractical for large datasets or complex models [71] [15]
Hybrid Methods	Consistently high	Maintains advantage longest	Moderate	Requires careful balancing of metrics [70] [7]

The benchmark results demonstrated that early in the acquisition process, uncertainty-driven methods (LCMD, Tree-based-R) and diversity-hybrid strategies (RD-GS) clearly outperformed geometry-only heuristics (GSx, EGAL) and random sampling [7]. This performance advantage was particularly evident when the labeled set contained only a small number of examples, highlighting the importance of strategic sample selection during early learning stages.

Case Study: Random Sampling vs. Active Learning in Quantum Liquid Water

A comparative study on machine learning potentials for quantum liquid water provides intriguing evidence about query strategy effectiveness. Researchers compared high-dimensional neural network potentials (HDNNPs) trained on datasets constructed using random sampling versus various active learning approaches based on query by committee [72]. Contrary to the common understanding of active learning, they found that for a given dataset size, random sampling sometimes led to smaller test errors for structures not included in the training process [72].

This surprising result was attributed to "small energy offsets caused by a bias in structures added in active learning," suggesting that static active learning approaches can sometimes introduce systematic biases that impact generalization [72]. The researchers noted that this issue could be overcome by using energy correlations as an error measure invariant to such shifts, highlighting how dynamic adjustment of both query strategies and evaluation metrics might be necessary throughout the acquisition process [72].

Methodologies for Dynamic Strategy Tuning

Performance Monitoring and Strategy Switching

The most straightforward approach to dynamic tuning involves continuous monitoring of strategy effectiveness throughout the acquisition process, with predefined switching criteria based on performance metrics. This methodology requires:

• Establishing baseline performance for each candidate strategy on the initial labeled data [70]
• Implementing multiple query strategies in parallel during initial acquisition phases
• Tracking normalized learning gains per strategy using metrics like MAE (Mean Absolute Error) and R² for regression tasks [7]
• Setting switching thresholds based on performance plateaus or comparative effectiveness

In practice, this approach might begin with uncertainty-based sampling when labeled data is scarce, then transition to hybrid strategies as the model stabilizes, and finally incorporate more diversity-focused approaches to capture edge cases in later stages [7].

Hybrid and Adaptive Query Functions

More sophisticated approaches involve developing adaptive query functions that intrinsically adjust their selection criteria based on the current state of the learning process. These methods include:

• Ensemble-based strategies that leverage multiple models or metrics to balance different selection criteria [70] [15]
• Context-aware sampling that considers both uncertainty and task-relevant context [70]
• Loss prediction modules that estimate potential misclassification errors during data selection [70]

These approaches are particularly valuable in domains like drug discovery, where the chemical space is vast and data distributions are inherently complex [44]. As noted in a comprehensive review of active learning in drug discovery, "Research has unequivocally demonstrated that the performance of combined ML models significantly influences the effectiveness of AL" [44].

Reinforcement Learning for Adaptive Selection

Emerging research explores using reinforcement learning (RL) to dynamically manage query strategies throughout the acquisition process. By formulating the strategy selection as a sequential decision-making problem, RL approaches can learn optimal policies for switching between query strategies based on the current state of the model and labeled dataset [73].

In one implementation, the batch-to-batch optimization problem was formulated as a Bayes-Adaptive Markov Decision Process (BAMDP), with a policy gradient reinforcement learning algorithm employed to solve it in a near-optimal manner [73]. This approach systematically plans and uses information-gathering actions to actively reduce uncertainty for the benefit of improved long-term performance over a series of iterations [73].

Application in Drug Discovery and Materials Science

Drug Discovery Applications

Active learning with dynamic query strategy tuning has shown particular promise in drug discovery, where it addresses multiple challenges in predicting compound-target interactions [44]. The application of AL in drug discovery includes:

• Virtual screening where AL compensates for the shortcomings of both structure-based and ligand-based virtual screening methods [44]
• Molecular generation and optimization where AL improves the effectiveness and efficiency of identifying promising drug candidates [44]
• Molecular property prediction where AL enhances the accuracy of predictions while reducing the required labeled data [44]

As noted in a recent comprehensive review, "The advantages of AL-guided data selection align well with the challenges faced in drug discovery, such as the expansion of exploration space and issues with flawed labeled data" [44].

Materials Science Implementation

In materials science, dynamic tuning of query strategies is particularly valuable due to the high costs associated with data acquisition. Experimental synthesis and characterization often require expert knowledge, expensive equipment, and time-consuming procedures [7]. The integration of Automated Machine Learning (AutoML) with active learning enables the construction of robust material-property prediction models while substantially reducing the volume of labeled data required [7].

The benchmark study in Scientific Reports demonstrated that the combination of AutoML with actively selected small training sets could achieve performance comparable to models trained on much larger datasets, with the specific optimal query strategy varying based on the acquisition stage [7].

Table 3: Research Reagent Solutions for Active Learning Experiments

Reagent/Resource	Function in Active Learning Research	Example Implementation
Monte Carlo Dropout	Estimates model uncertainty by randomly deactivating neurons during forward pass [70] [15]	Creates "pseudo-ensemble" to estimate confidence levels without multiple models [70]
Deep Ensembles	Provides robust uncertainty quantification using multiple models with different initializations [15]	Parallel models that analyze data from multiple perspectives to capture prediction variance [70]
Dimensionality Reduction (PCA, t-SNE, UMAP)	Enables diversity sampling in high-dimensional feature spaces [70]	Reduces number of dimensions while preserving main information for similarity assessment [70]
Bayesian Neural Networks	Quantifies epistemic uncertainty through probability distributions over weights [15]	Maintains probability distribution over model parameters to capture model uncertainty [15]
AutoML Frameworks	Automates model selection and hyperparameter optimization during active learning cycles [7]	Dynamically adapts surrogate model architecture as labeled dataset grows [7]

The dynamic tuning of query strategies during the acquisition process represents a significant advancement over static active learning approaches. The experimental evidence demonstrates that no single query strategy maintains optimal performance throughout the entire learning process, supporting the need for adaptive approaches that evolve with the changing characteristics of the model and labeled dataset [7].

Future research directions in this field include:

• Development of more sophisticated strategy transition criteria based on theoretical foundations rather than empirical observations
• Integration with transfer learning to leverage knowledge from related domains and optimize sampling decisions [70]
• Edge AI implementations where active learning systems locally decide which data requires additional annotation or processing [70]
• Improved uncertainty quantification methods that better distinguish between aleatoric and epistemic uncertainty throughout the learning process [15]

As active learning continues to be applied in high-stakes, data-expensive domains like drug discovery and materials science, the dynamic tuning of query strategies will play an increasingly important role in maximizing learning efficiency while minimizing annotation costs. The benchmark studies and experimental evidence compiled in this review provide a foundation for researchers seeking to implement these approaches in their own work.

Mitigating Model Drift and Local Optima in Iterative Learning

Active learning is an iterative machine learning paradigm designed to maximize model performance while minimizing the costly data labeling process. In this framework, an algorithm sequentially selects the most informative data points to be labeled by an oracle, thereby creating an optimized training set [74]. This approach is particularly valuable in domains like drug discovery and medical text classification, where expert annotation is expensive and time-consuming [74] [75]. However, the iterative nature of active learning introduces two significant challenges: model drift and convergence to local optima. Model drift occurs when the selective sampling of data causes the model's decision boundaries to shift in ways that poorly represent the underlying data distribution over successive iterations. Local optima present another hurdle, where the query strategy becomes trapped in a suboptimal cycle of data selection, failing to explore diverse and informative regions of the feature space. This comparative analysis examines the performance of various active learning query strategies in mitigating these persistent challenges, providing researchers with evidence-based guidance for strategic implementation.

Experimental Protocols and Benchmarking Frameworks

Standardized Benchmarking with ALPBench

To ensure fair and reproducible comparisons, recent research has introduced standardized benchmarking tools like ALPBench (Active Learning Pipelines Benchmark). This comprehensive framework includes 86 real-world tabular datasets and 5 distinct active learning settings, creating 430 unique experimental problems [76]. The benchmark facilitates the specification, execution, and performance monitoring of active learning pipelines with built-in reproducibility measures, including exact dataset splits and hyperparameter settings. In a typical ALPBench experiment, researchers evaluate various combinations of learning algorithms and query strategies across multiple rounds of iterative learning. Performance is measured by the classification accuracy achieved after each labeling round, with specific attention to how quickly each strategy approaches peak performance while maintaining stability across iterations [76].

Domain-Specific Evaluation Protocols

In specialized domains, tailored experimental protocols have been developed. For clinical text classification, studies typically employ a pool-based active learning setup with an initial labeled set, an unlabeled pool, and a fixed test set [74]. The learning process begins with an initialization phase followed by iterative selection phases where query strategies choose instances for labeling based on specific criteria like uncertainty or diversity [74]. Performance is quantified using classification accuracy and area under ROC curves at different sample sizes, with statistical significance testing via weighted mean of paired differences [74]. Similarly, in single-cell annotation research, datasets are split into multiple train/test partitions, with models trained on progressively larger sets of actively selected cells (typically 100, 250, and 500 cells) and evaluated on held-out test sets using multiple accuracy metrics [75].

Table 1: Key Experimental Protocols in Active Learning Research

Domain	Benchmark Datasets	Evaluation Metrics	Key Experimental Parameters
General Tabular Data	86 real-world datasets via ALPBench [76]	Classification accuracy across iterations	5 active learning settings, 8 learning algorithms, 9 query strategies
Clinical Text Classification	Five datasets including smoking status, depression classification [74]	Accuracy, AUC-ROC, statistical significance	Binary/multi-class splits, SVM-based learning, feature selection approaches
Single-Cell Annotation	Six datasets covering scRNASeq, snRNASeq, CyTOF technologies [75]	Multiple accuracy metrics, cell-type specific performance	Training set sizes of 100, 250, 500 cells, 10 train/test splits
Drug Response Prediction	CTRP dataset (57 drugs, 501-764 cell lines each) [23]	Hit identification rate, prediction model performance	Drug-specific models, iterative experiment selection

Comparative Analysis of Query Strategies

Uncertainty-Based Approaches

Uncertainty sampling represents the most straightforward approach to active learning, where instances with the highest predictive uncertainty are selected for labeling. Traditional uncertainty measures include entropy, least confidence, and smallest margin sampling [77]. In clinical text classification, distance-based (DIST) uncertainty strategies significantly outperformed passive learning across all five datasets, achieving statistically significant improvements (p < 0.05) [74]. However, pure uncertainty sampling demonstrates vulnerability to model drift, as it can become overly focused on ambiguous regions while ignoring broader data distribution, potentially leading to suboptimal model performance [77]. More advanced uncertainty approaches seek to distinguish between different types of uncertainty, particularly epistemic (reducible) and aleatoric (irreducible) uncertainty. Research indicates that prioritizing instances with high epistemic uncertainty more effectively guides the learner toward informative samples that reduce model uncertainty [77].

Diversity-Based and Hybrid Strategies

Diversity-based strategies address the exploration-exploitation tradeoff by selecting data points that represent the overall dataset structure, typically using clustering or similarity measures [76]. These approaches directly combat local optima by ensuring broad coverage of the feature space. In single-cell annotation benchmarking, diversity-based sampling proved particularly effective on datasets with high inherent diversity, where it outperformed random selection and showed robustness to class imbalance [75]. Hybrid strategies combine the strengths of multiple approaches, such as the Combined Method (CMB) that integrates both distance-based and diversity-based criteria [74]. This combined approach demonstrated superior performance in clinical text classification, outperforming passive learning in four out of five datasets while maintaining greater stability across iterations [74]. The robustness of such hybrid methods has been further enhanced through novel divergence measures, with β-divergence and dual γ-power divergence showing improved resistance to outliers compared to conventional Kullback-Leibler divergence [78].

Batch Active Learning and Cost-Efficient Variations

Practical constraints often require batch-style active learning where labels become available in groups rather than individually. Theoretical analysis confirms that the effects of batching are generally mild, resulting only in an additional label complexity term that grows quasilinearly with batch size [79]. This makes batch approaches particularly viable for real-world applications like drug discovery pipelines. For enhanced cost efficiency, candidate set query methods have been developed that narrow down the possible classes the oracle must consider, reducing labeling cost by up to 48% on challenging datasets like ImageNet64x64 while maintaining model accuracy [80]. These approaches leverage conformal prediction to dynamically generate reliable candidate sets that adapt to model improvements over successive active learning rounds [80].

Table 2: Performance Comparison of Active Learning Strategies

Strategy Type	Key Mechanisms	Strengths	Weaknesses	Performance Evidence
Uncertainty Sampling [77]	Selects instances with highest predictive uncertainty (entropy, least confidence, margin)	Rapid initial improvement, simple implementation	Vulnerable to outlier fixation, limited exploration	DIST outperformed passive in 5/5 clinical datasets [74]
Diversity Sampling [76] [75]	Selects representative instances via clustering/similarity	Combats local optima, handles diverse datasets	May select redundant informative samples	Superior on high-diversity single-cell data [75]
Hybrid Approaches [74] [78]	Combines uncertainty and diversity criteria	Balanced exploration-exploitation, robust performance	Increased computational complexity	CMB outperformed passive in 4/5 clinical datasets [74]
Query-by-Committee [78]	Uses committee disagreement to select instances	Reduces model-specific bias, robust estimates	Computational overhead for multiple models	β-divergence variants show improved robustness [78]
Batch Active Learning [79]	Processes queries in batches rather than individually	Practical for real-world applications, reduced overhead	Slight increase in label complexity	Theoretical quasilinear complexity in batch size [79]

Field Performance in Scientific Applications

Drug Discovery and Development

Active learning has demonstrated significant potential in preclinical drug screening, where it guides the selection of cell line-drug combinations for experimental testing. A comprehensive investigation of 57 anti-cancer drugs revealed that most active learning strategies substantially outperformed random selection in identifying effective treatments (hits) [23]. Strategy performance varied based on experimental goals: uncertainty-based approaches excelled at rapid hit identification, while diversity-based methods showed advantages for improving overall prediction model performance [23]. The hybrid approach combining greedy (exploitation) and uncertainty-based (exploration) elements achieved an optimal balance, efficiently building accurate response prediction models while simultaneously discovering responsive treatments with minimal experimental effort [23].

Single-Cell Genomics and Medical Imaging

In single-cell expression data annotation, active learning faces unique challenges including significant cell type imbalance and variable similarity between cell types [75]. Benchmarking across six datasets and three technologies revealed that random forest models combined with adaptive reweighting strategies—a heuristic procedure tailored to single-cell data—consistently outperformed random selection [75]. The incorporation of prior knowledge through marker-aware initialization further enhanced performance, demonstrating how domain expertise can complement algorithmic approaches to mitigate model drift [75]. In medical imaging domains like histopathology, ensemble methods including Deep Ensembles and Monte-Carlo Dropout have provided the most reliable uncertainty estimates under conditions of domain shift and label noise, enabling more effective rejection of uncertain samples and maintaining classification accuracy [81].

Table 3: Key Research Reagents and Computational Tools

Resource Name	Type	Function/Purpose	Application Context
ALPBench [76]	Software Benchmark	Standardized evaluation of active learning pipelines	General tabular data, method comparison
PMC/NCBI Datasets [74] [23]	Data Repository	Source of clinical text and drug screening datasets	Biomedical domain applications
Single-Cell Annotation Package [75]	Software Library	Implements adaptive reweighting for cell type annotation	Single-cell genomics, imbalance handling
Uncertainty Estimation Framework [81]	Code Repository	Implements ensemble methods for uncertainty quantification	Medical imaging, domain shift scenarios
Candidate Set Query Code [80]	Algorithm Implementation	Enables cost-efficient active learning via conformal prediction	Large-scale classification, cost reduction

Workflow and Strategic Decision Pathways

The comprehensive comparison of active learning query strategies reveals that no single approach universally dominates across all scenarios and domain contexts. Hybrid strategies that dynamically balance exploration and exploitation consistently demonstrate superior performance in mitigating both model drift and local optima [74] [75]. The optimal strategy selection depends critically on data characteristics, with high-diversity datasets benefiting from diversity-emphasis approaches, while low-diversity scenarios favor uncertainty-based methods [74] [75]. For real-world scientific applications, researchers should prioritize strategies that incorporate domain knowledge, such as marker-aware initialization in single-cell analysis or ensemble methods with robust divergence measures for noisy biomedical data [75] [78]. The emerging paradigm of cost-efficient active learning with candidate set queries presents a promising direction for future research, particularly in resource-intensive domains like drug discovery where reduction in labeling cost directly translates to accelerated scientific progress [80] [23].

Benchmarking Query Strategies: Validation Metrics and Comparative Performance

The field of active learning (AL) has developed numerous query strategies aimed at maximizing model performance while minimizing labeling costs, a crucial consideration for data-intensive fields like drug development. However, the absence of standardized evaluation protocols has led to conflicting conclusions in the literature, hindering progress and practical adoption. While some large-scale benchmarks suggest the continued competitiveness of simple Uncertainty Sampling (US) strategies [14], others argue for more sophisticated alternatives [14]. This inconsistency often stems from variations in experimental settings, such as model compatibility—the often-overlooked practice of using different models for querying and the final task—which can significantly degrade the perceived performance of otherwise effective strategies [14]. Furthermore, the traditional reliance on visual comparison of learning curves is inadequate for robustly determining statistical significance when multiple strategies are assessed across numerous datasets [42]. This guide establishes a comprehensive, objective framework for comparing AL query strategies, providing researchers and scientists with standardized performance metrics, detailed experimental protocols, and essential benchmarking tools to ensure reproducible, reliable, and actionable evaluations.

Core Components of an AL Benchmarking Framework

A robust benchmarking framework must standardize several key components to ensure fair and informative comparisons. These components define the playing field upon which different query strategies are evaluated.

Active Learning Scenarios and Query Strategies

The first step is to define the learning scenario and the strategies to be tested. While pool-based sampling is the most common scenario, where the algorithm selects from a large pool of unlabeled data [82], other scenarios like stream-based selective sampling exist [1]. The choice of query strategy is the core differentiator in AL research. Table 1 provides a structured overview of the principal query strategies and their characteristics, which should form the basis of any comparative study.

Table 1: Taxonomy of Active Learning Query Strategies

Strategy Category	Key Principle	Representative Methods	Typical Use Case
Uncertainty Sampling [55]	Queries instances where the current model is least certain.	Least Confidence, Margin Sampling, Entropy Sampling [24]	High-performance baseline; effective with compatible models [14].
Diversity Sampling [55]	Queries instances to maximize the diversity of the training set.	Clustering (K-means), Core-Set approach [82]	Overcoming redundancy in selected batches; cold-start settings [24].
Committee-Based [55]	Queries instances where a committee of models disagrees the most.	Query-by-Committee (QBC), Vote Entropy	Leveraging model ensembles; useful when single model uncertainty is unreliable.
Expected Model Change [55]	Queries instances expected to cause the largest change to the current model.	Expected Gradient Length	Prioritizing data points with high potential learning impact.
Hybrid & Advanced [7] [55]	Combines multiple principles (e.g., uncertainty + diversity).	RD-GS, Density-Weighted, BADGE	Batch-mode active learning; preventing sampling bias and mode collapse [82].

Performance Metrics and Evaluation Approaches

Quantifying performance is critical. Beyond simply tracking accuracy over iterations, a comprehensive benchmark should employ multiple metrics and statistical analyses.

• Primary Metrics: The most common metrics are label complexity (test accuracy vs. number of labels) and the Area Under the Label Complexity Curve (AULC), which provides a single scalar value for overall efficiency [55]. Standard regression metrics like Mean Absolute Error (MAE) and the Coefficient of Determination (R²) are used for regression tasks [7].
• Statistical Validation: To move beyond visual curve comparison, non-parametric statistical tests should be employed to determine if performance differences between strategies are statistically significant across multiple datasets [42]. Two effective approaches are:
  • Analysis of Final Performance (TP): Analyzes the final performance score (e.g., accuracy, MAE) after the labeling budget is exhausted.
  • Analysis of Intermediate Results: Considers the performance scores at all intermediate steps of the AL process, offering higher statistical power [42].

Standardized Experimental Protocol for Benchmarking

A rigorous and reproducible experimental protocol is the backbone of a trustworthy benchmarking framework. The following methodology, common in recent literature [7] [14], ensures a fair comparison.

Workflow and Setup

The typical pool-based AL workflow can be standardized into a series of well-defined steps, as illustrated in the diagram below.

Initial Setup: The process begins by partitioning a dataset into an initial small labeled pool ( L = {(xi, yi)}{i=1}^l ) and a large unlabeled pool ( U = {xi}_{i=l+1}^n ) [7]. A common practice is to use an 80:20 train-test split, with the training set further divided to create the initial ( L ) and ( U ) [7].

Execution Loop: The AL algorithm operates for a fixed number of rounds (the query budget ( T )). In each round:

• Query: A query strategy ( \mathcal{Q} ) selects the most informative instance ( x^* ) from ( U ) [14].
• Label: An oracle (e.g., a human annotator) provides the label ( y^* ) for ( x^* ) [14].
• Update: The newly labeled instance ( (x^, y^) ) is moved from ( U ) to ( L ), and the model is retrained on the updated ( L ) [7] [14].

Stopping Criterion: The loop continues until the predefined query budget ( T ) is exhausted [7].

Critical Experimental Considerations

To avoid the pitfalls of past comparisons, the following factors must be carefully controlled.

• Model Compatibility: The model used to select queries (the query-oriented model) must be the same as the model being evaluated for the task (the task-oriented model). Incompatibility can severely degrade the performance of uncertainty-based strategies [14].
• Model Retraining: In each AL round, the model should be fully retrained or fine-tuned on the augmented labeled set ( L ) to adapt to the newly acquired data [7].
• Validation: Using a separate validation set or cross-validation (e.g., 5-fold) within the AutoML or training process is recommended for robust hyperparameter tuning and model selection [7].
• Dataset Diversity: Benchmarks should include a wide variety of datasets, varying in size, dimensionality, and task type (e.g., binary classification, multi-class, regression) to ensure the generalizability of conclusions [14].

Performance Comparison and Data Presentation

Synthesizing results from rigorous benchmarks provides actionable insights for practitioners. The following tables summarize key quantitative findings and critical experimental conditions.

Table 2: Comparative Performance of Active Learning Strategies (Classification Tasks on Tabular Data)

Query Strategy	Performance Summary	Key Experimental Condition	Source
Uncertainty Sampling (US)	State-of-the-art on 18/29 binary-class and 5/7 multi-class datasets.	Requires model compatibility (same model for querying and task).	[14]
Uncertainty-Driven (e.g., LCMD) & Hybrid (e.g., RD-GS)	Outperform geometry-only heuristics and random sampling early in the acquisition process.	Evaluated within an AutoML framework for small-sample regression in materials science.	[7]
Learning Active Learning (LAL)	Argued to outperform US in one benchmark, but results may be confounded.	Potential issue of model incompatibility during evaluation.	[14]
All Strategies	Performance gap narrows and methods converge as the labeled set grows.	Demonstrates diminishing returns from AL under an AutoML framework.	[7]

Table 3: Essential Research Reagent Solutions for AL Benchmarking

Reagent / Resource	Function in the Benchmarking Experiment	Examples & Notes
Open-Source AL Frameworks	Provides standardized, reusable implementations of AL protocols and query strategies.	libact [14], ALiPy [14], scikit-activeml [14], ModAL [14].
Diverse Benchmark Datasets	Serves as the testbed for evaluating strategy performance across different data distributions.	Should include tabular, image, and text data with varying sizes and complexities [14].
Statistical Analysis Toolkit	Enables rigorous validation of results to determine statistical significance.	Non-parametric tests like the Friedman test with post-hoc Nemenyi test [42].
Compute Infrastructure	Facilitates the often computationally intensive process of running multiple AL experiments.	Cloud platforms or high-performance computing (HPC) clusters.
Unified Evaluation Protocol	Ensures fair and reproducible comparisons between different strategies.	The standardized workflow and metrics defined in this guide.

Visualization of Benchmarking Architecture

A well-designed benchmarking framework relies on a structured architecture to coordinate its components. The following diagram outlines the core protocol abstractions and their interactions, drawing from modern AL library designs [83].

This guide has established a comprehensive framework for benchmarking active learning query strategies, emphasizing standardized metrics, rigorous statistical validation, and controlled experimental protocols. The key takeaway for researchers and drug development professionals is that no single strategy dominates universally; the performance is highly dependent on context, with factors like model compatibility being decisive [14]. Simple strategies like Uncertainty Sampling remain strong, cost-effective baselines when implemented correctly [14]. The future of AL benchmarking lies in addressing more complex, realistic settings, including robust evaluation under concept drift, integration with semi-supervised learning, and the development of more scalable and reproducible open-source benchmarks [55]. By adopting this structured approach, the research community can build a more coherent and reliable knowledge base, accelerating the development of data-efficient machine learning solutions for critical domains like pharmaceutical R&D.

Active Learning (AL) has emerged as a critical paradigm for enhancing data efficiency in machine learning, particularly in domains like drug development and materials science where data annotation is costly and time-consuming [7] [1]. By iteratively selecting the most informative data points for labeling, AL strategies aim to maximize model performance while minimizing labeling costs. The core query strategies in AL have traditionally fallen into two main categories: uncertainty-based sampling and diversity-based sampling. More recently, hybrid strategies that combine these approaches have gained prominence to overcome the limitations of each individual method [11] [82].

This comparative guide provides an objective analysis of these strategic approaches within the broader context of AL performance research. Through examination of experimental protocols, quantitative results, and field-specific applications, we offer researchers and drug development professionals evidence-based insights for selecting and implementing AL strategies in scientific domains characterized by data scarcity.

Active Learning Query Strategies: Core Principles and Methodologies

Uncertainty-Based Sampling

Uncertainty sampling operates on the principle of selecting data points where the current model exhibits lowest confidence in its predictions [70] [1]. This approach identifies samples that are personally challenging for the model, with the expectation that labeling these instances will provide maximum learning value.

Key Methodological Approaches:

• Least Confidence: Selects instances where the model's highest predicted probability is lowest [70] [82]
• Margin Sampling: Prioritizes samples with smallest difference between top two class probabilities [70]
• Entropy-Based: Uses information-theoretic measures to identify high-uncertainty samples [70]
• Bayesian Methods: Employs Monte Carlo Dropout or ensemble approaches to estimate predictive uncertainty [11] [7]

In practice, Bayesian Active Summarization (BAS) exemplifies uncertainty sampling for text summarization by computing BLEU Variance (BLEUVar) through Monte Carlo dropout to quantify summarization uncertainty [11]. For regression tasks in materials science, uncertainty estimation often relies on ensemble variance or dropout-based methods [7].

Diversity-Based Sampling

Diversity sampling focuses on selecting a representative subset of data that covers the entire feature space, ensuring the model encounters a broad spectrum of examples [70] [82]. This approach prioritizes representativeness over individual challenge.

Key Methodological Approaches:

• Core-Set Approach: Selects instances to minimize maximum distance between unlabeled points and their nearest labeled neighbors [82]
• Clustering-Based: Uses feature embeddings to identify diverse clusters and samples across them [82]
• In-Domain Diversity Sampling (IDDS): Ranks samples based on similarity to unlabeled set and dissimilarity to labeled set [11]

The IDDS method formalizes this approach through a scoring function that balances representativeness of the unlabeled data against dissimilarity from already labeled instances [11]. This strategy is particularly valuable when the initial labeled set may not adequately represent the overall data distribution.

Hybrid Strategies

Hybrid strategies seek to leverage the complementary strengths of both uncertainty and diversity approaches [11] [82]. These methods aim to select samples that are both challenging for the model and representative of the overall data distribution.

Key Methodological Approaches:

• DUAL (Diversity and Uncertainty Active Learning): Combines uncertainty and diversity to select samples that are both challenging and representative [11]
• Batch-Mode Deep Active Learning (BMDAL): Uses batch-based sampling with both uncertainty and diversity considerations [82]
• Density-Based Strategies: Focus on "core datasets" that represent the overall distribution while including uncertain examples [82]

The DUAL algorithm specifically addresses the selection of noisy samples in uncertainty-based methods and the limited exploration scope of diversity-based methods, attempting to strike an optimal balance between these competing objectives [11].

Table 1: Fundamental Characteristics of Active Learning Strategies

Strategy Type	Core Principle	Key Metrics	Primary Advantages	Common Limitations
Uncertainty-Based	Selects samples where model prediction confidence is lowest	Entropy, Margin, BLEUVar, Ensemble variance [11] [70]	Targets model weaknesses directly; Efficient for fine-tuning specific capabilities [1]	Risk of selecting outliers/noisy samples; Potential mode collapse [11] [82]
Diversity-Based	Selects samples that broadly represent data distribution	Similarity metrics, Cluster coverage, Representativeness scores [11] [82]	Ensures broad coverage of feature space; Reduces sampling bias [70]	May include many easy samples; Limited exploration of challenging regions [11]
Hybrid	Balances uncertainty and diversity considerations	Combined scores, Multi-objective optimization [11] [82]	Mitigates individual approach limitations; More robust performance [11]	Increased computational complexity; Balancing parameters requires tuning [11] [82]

Experimental Protocols and Benchmarking

Standardized Evaluation Frameworks

Rigorous benchmarking of AL strategies requires standardized evaluation protocols. The pool-based AL framework represents the most common experimental setup, where an initial small labeled dataset is iteratively expanded by selecting informative samples from a larger unlabeled pool [7]. In this framework:

• Initialization: The process begins with a small set of labeled data points (typically randomly selected)
• Iterative Cycle: The model selects informative samples, receives labels (simulated or from human annotators), retrains, and repeats
• Stopping Criterion: Evaluation continues until performance plateaus or a predetermined labeling budget is exhausted [7]

Performance is typically evaluated using task-appropriate metrics—ROUGE scores for summarization [11], accuracy/F1 scores for classification [1], and MAE/R² for regression tasks in materials science [7]. Critical to valid comparison is ensuring consistent experimental conditions across strategy evaluations, including identical initial labeled sets, matching computational budgets, and consistent model architectures.

Domain-Specific Methodological Adaptations

Text Summarization Protocols: Experiments with DUAL employed BART and PEGASUS summarization models on benchmark datasets, with evaluation based on ROUGE scores comparing against BAS, IDDS, and random sampling baselines [11]. The Bayesian Active Summarization method specifically uses Monte Carlo dropout to generate multiple summaries for the same input, then computes BLEU variance across these summaries as the uncertainty metric [11].

Materials Science Protocols: A comprehensive benchmark with AutoML for regression tasks evaluated 17 AL strategies across 9 materials formulation datasets [7]. The protocol used an 80:20 train-test split with 5-fold cross-validation within the AutoML workflow, assessing performance using MAE and R² throughout the iterative expansion of the labeled set [7].

Medical Imaging Protocols: The model-informed oracle training framework implemented a bidirectional AL approach where the model assists oracle learning while the oracle provides labels [29]. This involved 252 clinicians performing medical image interpretation tasks, with a specific focus on how AL strategies perform with imperfect human oracles [29].

Diagram 1: Active Learning Iterative Workflow. This illustrates the standard pool-based active learning cycle used in experimental evaluations.

Comparative Performance Analysis

Quantitative Results Across Domains

Table 2: Performance Comparison Across Experimental Studies

Application Domain	Best Performing Strategy	Key Metric & Improvement	Runner-Up Strategy	Worst Performing Strategy
Text Summarization [11]	DUAL (Hybrid)	Consistently matched or outperformed best single-category strategies across models/datasets	IDDS (Diversity)	Uncertainty-only (exhibited noise sensitivity)
Materials Science Regression [7]	Uncertainty-driven (LCMD, Tree-based-R) & Diversity-hybrid (RD-GS)	Superior early acquisition performance; 60%+ reduction in data requirements [7]	Geometry-only heuristics (GSx, EGAL)	Random sampling (early phase)
Medical Imaging [29]	Hybrid (Uncertainty + Representativeness)	Strongest knowledge augmentation effect with fixed learning budget	Uncertainty-only	Diversity-only
General Classification [82]	Batch-Mode DAL with hybrid queries	Avoided mode collapse issues of uncertainty sampling	Diversity sampling	Pure uncertainty sampling

Strategy-Specific Performance Patterns

Experimental evidence reveals consistent patterns in strategy performance across domains:

Uncertainty Sampling demonstrates particular strength in early learning phases and when dealing with well-defined decision boundaries. In materials science regression tasks, uncertainty-driven methods like LCMD and Tree-based-R clearly outperformed other approaches early in the acquisition process [7]. However, pure uncertainty approaches show vulnerability to selecting noisy or outlier samples and can lead to "mode collapse" where the model over-samples from certain data regions while ignoring others [11] [82].

Diversity Sampling excels when the initial labeled set poorly represents the overall data distribution. In-Domain Diversity Sampling (IDDS) showed competitive performance in text summarization tasks, particularly as a runner-up to hybrid methods [11]. The primary limitation of diversity-based approaches is their potential inclusion of many easily predictable samples, reducing learning efficiency for mastering challenging decision boundaries [11].

Hybrid Strategies consistently demonstrate the most robust performance across domains and learning phases. The DUAL algorithm achieved consistent matching or outperformance of the best single-category strategies in text summarization [11]. Similarly, in medical imaging with human oracles, hybrid approaches balancing uncertainty and representativeness yielded the strongest knowledge augmentation effects within fixed learning budgets [29].

Implementation Considerations for Scientific Domains

Computational Requirements and Scalability

Strategy selection must consider computational constraints, which vary significantly across approaches:

• Uncertainty Methods: Bayesian approaches like Monte Carlo Dropout require multiple forward passes per prediction, increasing computational load [11] [7]
• Diversity Methods: Require pairwise similarity computations across the unlabeled pool, creating O(n²) complexity challenges for large datasets [11]
• Hybrid Methods: Incur overhead from both uncertainty estimation and diversity measurement, though methods like DUAL aim to maintain computational feasibility [11]

For large-scale applications, stream-based selective sampling offers computational advantages by evaluating instances individually rather than across the entire pool [1] [82]. Batch-mode approaches like BMDAL provide better scaling than individual querying while maintaining diversity through hybrid selection criteria [82].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Table 3: Essential Methodological Components for Active Learning Implementation

Component	Function	Implementation Examples
Uncertainty Quantification	Measures model confidence for prediction	Monte Carlo Dropout [11] [7], Ensemble Variance [70], BLEUVar (for summarization) [11]
Diversity Measurement	Assesses representativeness and coverage	Similarity metrics [11], Clustering algorithms [82], Core-set selection [82]
Embedding Models	Generate feature representations for diversity	Pre-trained transformers [11], AutoML feature extractors [7], Task-specific encoders
AutoML Integration	Automates model selection and hyperparameter tuning	Integrated with AL to handle model evolution [7], Adapts to changing hypothesis spaces during AL cycles [7]
Human-in-the-Loop Infrastructure	Facilitates efficient oracle labeling	Annotation interfaces [29], Model-informed oracle training [29], Quality control mechanisms

Diagram 2: Strategy Selection Decision Framework. A practical guide for researchers selecting active learning strategies based on project requirements and constraints.

This comparative analysis demonstrates that while uncertainty, diversity, and hybrid strategies each have distinct strengths and limitations, hybrid approaches generally offer the most robust performance across diverse applications and learning phases. The DUAL algorithm in text summarization and uncertainty-diversity hybrids in materials science and medical imaging consistently achieve superior or matching performance compared to single-principle strategies [11] [7] [29].

Critical to successful implementation is aligning strategy selection with specific domain requirements, learning stage, and resource constraints. Uncertainty-focused approaches excel in early phases with clear decision boundaries, while diversity methods prove valuable when representative sampling is paramount. Hybrid strategies provide insurance against the failure modes of individual approaches, making them particularly valuable in scientific domains where labeling costs are prohibitive and experimental iterations are limited.

For drug development professionals and researchers, the evidence supports adopting hybrid strategies as default approaches for complex, real-world applications where data characteristics may not be fully known in advance. As AL continues evolving, integration with AutoML [7] and automated strategy selection methods like AutoAL [84] promise to further reduce implementation barriers while optimizing performance across diverse scientific domains.

Recent comprehensive benchmarks in scientific fields with high data acquisition costs, such as materials science and drug discovery, consistently demonstrate that uncertainty-driven and hybrid active learning (AL) strategies significantly outperform random sampling and other heuristics in the early stages of data acquisition. These methods achieve superior model accuracy with a much smaller volume of labeled data, substantially reducing experimental and computational costs [7] [9]. As the labeled dataset grows, the performance advantage of these sophisticated strategies narrows, indicating their highest value is in low-data regimes [7].

Table 1: Core Finding Summary

Feature	Uncertainty & Hybrid AL Strategies	Random Sampling / Geometry-Only Heuristics
Early-Stage Performance	Clearly superior; faster convergence to high accuracy [7].	Lower initial model accuracy [7].
Data Efficiency	High; achieves target performance with 20-30% fewer labels, up to 43% in some NLP tasks [85] [55].	Lower; requires more labeled data to achieve similar performance [7].
Key Advantage	Selects maximally informative samples, reducing model uncertainty fastest [1] [70].	No strategic sample selection; serves as a baseline [7].
Performance Convergence	Strategies converge with others as the labeled set grows [7].	Eventually matches AL performance with sufficient data [7].

Detailed Benchmark Data and Comparative Analysis

Evidence from Materials Science

A 2025 large-scale benchmark study evaluated 17 AL strategies within an Automated Machine Learning (AutoML) framework across multiple materials science regression tasks [7]. The findings provide robust, quantitative support for the superiority of specific strategy types.

Table 2: Benchmark Performance in Materials Science (Scientific Reports, 2025) [7]

Strategy Type	Specific Methods	Early-Stage Performance	Data Efficiency	Key Characteristics
Uncertainty-Driven	LCMD, Tree-based-R	Clearly outperforms baseline	High	Targets samples where model prediction variance is highest.
Diversity-Hybrid	RD-GS	Clearly outperforms baseline	High	Combines representative data sampling with a greedy selector for diversity.
Geometry-Only Heuristics	GSx, EGAL	Underperforms uncertainty/hybrid methods	Lower	Relies on data space structure without model uncertainty.
Baseline	Random-Sampling	Lowest initial accuracy	Lowest	No strategic sample selection.

Evidence from Natural Language Processing

Research in low-resource NLP fine-tuning further validates these findings. The TYROGUE framework, a hybrid method that decouples diversity and uncertainty sampling, demonstrated a reduction in labeling cost of up to 43% compared to the next best algorithm to achieve a target F1 score [85].

Evidence from Materials Optimization

Applied research on heat treatment optimization for medium-Mn steel showed that an Upper Confidence Bound (UCB) strategy, a type of uncertainty-based method, successfully identified optimal processing conditions with minimal experiments, achieving predictive accuracies of 93.81% for Ultimate Tensile Strength and 88.49% for Total Elongation [9].

Experimental Protocols of Key Studies

• Objective: Systematically evaluate the effectiveness of 17 AL strategies within an AutoML pipeline on small-sample regression tasks in materials science.
• Dataset: 9 materials formulation datasets, typically small due to high data acquisition costs.
• Methodology:
  • Initialization: A small set of labeled samples ((L)) and a large pool of unlabeled samples ((U)) are defined.
  • Active Learning Loop:
    • An AutoML model is fitted on the current labeled set (L).
    • The model's performance is tested and recorded.
    • A query strategy selects the most informative sample (x^) from the unlabeled pool (U).
    • The sample (x^) is "labeled" (its target value is revealed) and added to (L).
  • Iteration: This process repeats for multiple rounds, progressively expanding (L).
• Evaluation Metrics: Model performance was tracked using Mean Absolute Error (MAE) and the Coefficient of Determination ((R^2)) across acquisition steps.

• Objective: Propose and validate a novel AL method that reduces labeling cost and computational latency.
• Core Protocol:
  • Candidate Set Reduction: A random sample is first drawn from the massive unlabeled pool to reduce computational overhead for subsequent steps.
  • Decoupled Hybrid Acquisition:
    • Step 1 (Diversity Sampling): Cluster the candidate set and select cluster centers to ensure broad coverage and avoid intra-iteration redundancy.
    • Step 2 (Uncertainty Sampling): From the selected clusters, choose data points with the highest predictive entropy (uncertainty) to avoid inter-iteration redundancy.
• Evaluation: Compared against state-of-the-art uncertainty-based, diversity-based, and hybrid methods on eight NLP datasets, measuring the number of labels needed to reach a target F1 score and the per-iteration acquisition time.

Workflow and Strategy Diagrams

Pool-based Active Learning Workflow

TYROGUE's Decoupled Hybrid Strategy

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential Tools for Implementing Active Learning

Tool / Solution	Function in Active Learning Workflow	Relevance to Key Finding
Automated Machine Learning (AutoML)	Automates model selection, hyperparameter tuning, and preprocessing; acts as the surrogate model in AL cycles [7].	Crucial for robust benchmarks, as it eliminates human bias in model choice, ensuring strategy performance is evaluated fairly.
Uncertainty Quantification Metrics	Measures model confidence for each prediction. Common metrics include Entropy, Margin, and Ensemble Variance [70].	The foundation of uncertainty-driven strategies. Enables the identification of "informative" samples where model confidence is lowest.
Molecular Modeling Oracles	Physics-based computational simulations (e.g., docking scores, binding free energy) used to evaluate generated molecules in drug discovery [49].	Acts as a high-fidelity, cost-effective labeling function in AL cycles for drug design, guiding the generation of novel, active compounds.
Variational Autoencoder (VAE)	A generative model that learns a continuous latent representation of input data, such as molecular structures [49].	Integrated with AL to generate novel data points (e.g., new drug candidates) from scratch, rather than selecting from a fixed pool.
Cheminformatics Predictors	Computational tools that assess chemical properties like drug-likeness and synthetic accessibility [49].	Used as a filter in AL workflows to prioritize molecules that are practical and valuable for experimental testing.

Comparative Performance of Computational Drug Discovery Methods

The table below provides a quantitative comparison of modern computational approaches, highlighting their performance in hit discovery rates and prediction accuracy.

Method/Model	Key Approach	Reported Hit Rate	Key Performance Metrics	Data Type Utilized
GALILEO (Generative AI)	One-shot generative AI with geometric graph convolutional networks (ChemPrint) [86].	100% (12/12 compounds showed antiviral activity) [86].	Identified 12 specific antiviral compounds from 1 billion inference library [86].	Drug molecular structures (SMILES).
Quantum-Enhanced (Insilico Medicine)	Hybrid quantum-classical approach combining quantum circuit Born machines (QCBMs) with deep learning [86].	~13% (2 biologically active compounds from 15 synthesized) [86].	21.5% improvement in filtering non-viable molecules vs. AI-only models; achieved 1.4 μM binding affinity to KRAS-G12D [86].	Drug molecular structures for screening.
DrugS	Deep neural network (DNN) using autoencoder for gene features and drug SMILES strings [87].	N/P (Focused on prediction accuracy)	Robust performance on CTRPv2 and NCI-60 datasets; successfully predicted combinations to reverse Ibrutinib resistance [87].	Gene expression, drug SMILES.
PASO	Transformer & multi-scale CNN integrating pathway-level multi-omics and drug SMILES [88].	N/P (Focused on prediction accuracy)	Superior predictive performance for anticancer drug sensitivity; validated with TCGA clinical data [88].	Pathway-level multi-omics (expression, mutation, CNV), drug SMILES.
ATSDP-NET	Transfer learning & attention networks for single-cell data [89].	N/P (Focused on prediction accuracy)	Superior recall, ROC, and AP on scRNA-seq data; high correlation (R=0.888) for sensitivity gene scores [89].	Bulk and single-cell RNA-seq data.
Active Learning with AutoML	17 AL strategies (e.g., uncertainty, diversity) benchmarked in an AutoML framework for regression [7].	N/P (Focused on model accuracy vs. data volume)	Uncertainty (LCMD, Tree-based-R) & diversity-hybrid (RD-GS) strategies outperformed early in learning; all methods converged with more data [7].	Materials science formulation data.

Detailed Experimental Protocols

1. Generative AI and Quantum-Enhanced Hit Discovery The high-hit-rate methodologies rely on advanced computational screening and generation. The GALILEO platform employed a multi-stage funnel: it began with 52 trillion molecules, which were reduced to an inference library of 1 billion candidates using its generative AI models. From this library, it identified 12 highly specific compounds targeting the Thumb-1 pocket of viral RNA polymerases. The subsequent in vitro validation against Hepatitis C Virus and human Coronavirus 229E confirmed antiviral activity for all 12, resulting in the 100% hit rate [86]. The quantum-enhanced pipeline by Insilico Medicine screened 100 million molecules using a hybrid model. The process involved quantum-circuit-born machines for initial candidate generation and deep learning for refinement, leading to the synthesis of 15 compounds. The experimental validation of these 15 through binding affinity assays (e.g., for KRAS-G12D) confirmed activity in two, defining the 13% hit rate [86].

2. Benchmarking Active Learning Strategies with AutoML This systematic evaluation provides a protocol for assessing data efficiency. The core setup involves a pool-based active learning framework for a regression task [7].

• Initialization: A small set of labeled samples is randomly selected from a larger unlabeled pool.
• Iterative Active Learning Loop:
  • Model Training & Optimization: An AutoML system is fitted on the current labeled set. AutoML automatically handles model selection (e.g., from linear regressors, tree-based ensembles, or neural networks) and hyperparameter tuning, often using cross-validation [7].
  • Query Strategy Application: One of the 17 tested AL strategies (e.g., LCMD for uncertainty, RD-GS for diversity) selects the next most informative data point from the unlabeled pool.
  • "Annotation": The selected data point is labeled (its target value is acquired, simulating an expensive experiment).
  • Dataset Update: The newly labeled sample is added to the training set [7].
• Performance Evaluation: This cycle repeats, with model performance (e.g., MAE, R²) tracked on a held-out test set after each iteration to measure learning efficiency [7].

3. Drug Response Prediction with Deep Learning Models Models like PASO and DrugS share a common workflow for predicting drug response (e.g., IC50 values).

• Input Feature Engineering:
  • Omics Data Processing: PASO calculates pathway-level difference values for gene expression, copy number variation, and mutations using statistical tests (Mann-Whitney U, Chi-square-G) against KEGG pathways, rather than using single-gene features [88]. DrugS uses an autoencoder to perform dimensionality reduction on 20,000 protein-coding genes, compressing them into 30 features [87].
  • Drug Data Processing: Drug molecular structures (SMILES strings) are used. PASO processes them with an embedding network, multi-scale CNNs, and a transformer encoder [88]. DrugS extracts molecular fingerprints from the SMILES strings [87].
• Model Architecture & Training: The processed features are integrated using specialized neural networks. PASO uses an attention mechanism to learn complex interactions between the multi-scale drug features and the pathway-level omics data, before a final MLP outputs the prediction [88]. DrugS uses a DNN that takes the combined gene expression and drug fingerprint features to predict LN IC50 [87].
• Validation: Models are typically validated using cell line data (e.g., from GDSC or CTRP) under different data-splitting strategies (e.g., cell-blind, drug-blind) to test generalizability and are sometimes correlated with clinical outcomes from sources like TCGA [88].

Experimental Workflow Visualization

The diagram below illustrates the iterative cycle of an active learning benchmark for drug discovery.

Research Reagent Solutions

The table below lists key computational tools and data resources essential for research in this field.

Tool / Resource	Type	Primary Function in Research
CETSA	Experimental Assay	Validates direct drug-target engagement in intact cells and tissues, bridging the gap between computational prediction and cellular efficacy [13].
GDSC / DepMap	Public Database	Provides large-scale genomic data (gene expression, mutations) and drug response data (IC50, AUC) from cancer cell lines for training and validating prediction models [90] [87].
ChEMBL	Public Database	A curated database of bioactive molecules with drug-target interactions and bioactivity data, essential for ligand-centric target prediction and model training [91].
AutoML Frameworks	Software Tool	Automates the process of model selection and hyperparameter optimization, which is particularly valuable when integrating with active learning loops [7].
TCGA	Public Database	Provides clinical data and multi-omics data from patients, used to validate the clinical relevance and translational potential of computational predictions [88].
scRNA-seq Data	Data Type	Enables the study of tumor heterogeneity and drug response prediction at the single-cell level, requiring specialized models like ATSDP-NET [89].

The performance comparison of active learning (AL) query strategies is a critical research area in machine learning, particularly for applications with high data acquisition costs like drug discovery and materials science. Active learning aims to train high-performance models with minimal labeled data by iteratively selecting the most informative instances for annotation [92] [93]. Validating the effectiveness of these query strategies requires robust methodologies across computational, retrospective, and experimental domains. This guide provides a comprehensive comparison of validation approaches for AL strategies, offering researchers a structured framework for evaluating strategy performance across different application contexts.

Each validation approach offers distinct advantages: computational checks enable rapid iteration, retrospective analysis provides real-world validation, and experimental confirmation delivers definitive proof of efficacy. The choice of validation methodology depends on research goals, available resources, and the specific requirements of the application domain, particularly in scientific fields like drug development where validation rigor is paramount [67] [23].

Computational Checks

Computational validation employs statistical tests and benchmark studies to evaluate AL strategy performance using existing datasets or simulations, providing a foundation for initial assessment before committing to costly experimental validation.

Statistical Comparison Methods

Visual comparison of learning curves has been the traditional method for evaluating AL strategies, but this approach becomes challenging when multiple strategies with similar performances are compared across numerous datasets [42]. To address this limitation, rigorous statistical comparison methods have been developed:

• Area Under Learning Curve Analysis: Calculates the area under the performance curve across all active learning iterations, providing a single aggregate performance score for each strategy [42].
• Rate of Performance Change Analysis: Evaluates how quickly each strategy improves model performance during early iterations, which is crucial when labeling budgets are limited [42].
• Non-parametric Statistical Testing: Uses tests like the Friedman test with post-hoc Nemenyi analysis to determine significant performance differences between multiple strategies across various datasets, addressing the limitations of visual comparison [42].

These methods enable researchers to make statistically sound conclusions about strategy performance, moving beyond subjective visual assessments.

Benchmark Studies

Comprehensive benchmark studies evaluate multiple AL strategies across diverse datasets and application domains. Key findings from recent benchmarks include:

• In materials science regression tasks, uncertainty-driven (LCMD, Tree-based-R) and diversity-hybrid (RD-GS) strategies outperformed geometry-only heuristics (GSx, EGAL) and random sampling early in the acquisition process [7].
• As labeled sets grow, the performance gap between strategies narrows, indicating diminishing returns from active learning under Automated Machine Learning (AutoML) frameworks [7].
• In anti-cancer drug response prediction, active learning approaches significantly improved hit identification compared to random and greedy sampling methods, though improvements in response prediction performance varied across drugs [23].

The table below summarizes quantitative results from recent AL benchmark studies:

Table 1: Performance Comparison of Active Learning Strategies in Recent Benchmarks

Application Domain	Top-Performing Strategies	Performance Advantage	Key Metric
Materials Science Regression	Uncertainty-driven (LCMD, Tree-based-R), Diversity-hybrid (RD-GS)	Outperform geometry-only heuristics and random sampling early in acquisition process [7]	Mean Absolute Error (MAE)
Anti-cancer Drug Response Prediction	Uncertainty-based, Diversity-based, Hybrid approaches	Significant improvement in identifying responsive treatments compared to random sampling [23]	Hit Identification Rate
Object Detection	MGRAL (Reinforcement Learning-based)	Directly optimizes mAP, addresses batch selection challenges [93]	Mean Average Precision (mAP)

Experimental Protocols for Computational Validation

Standardized experimental protocols enable fair comparison of AL strategies:

• Dataset Partitioning: Divide data into training and test sets with standard ratios (e.g., 80:20), with validation performed automatically within the AutoML workflow using cross-validation (typically 5-fold) [7].
• Iterative Sampling Framework: Implement pool-based AL with an initial random sample, followed by multiple rounds of strategy-driven selection from unlabeled pools [7] [23].
• Performance Tracking: Monitor key metrics (e.g., MAE, R² for regression; accuracy, F1-score for classification; mAP for object detection) across iterations to generate learning curves [7] [42].
• Statistical Significance Testing: Apply non-parametric statistical tests to determine if performance differences are statistically significant across multiple datasets [42].

The following diagram illustrates the standard computational validation workflow for comparing AL strategies:

Retrospective Clinical Analysis

Retrospective analysis validates AL strategies using historical clinical or experimental data, assessing how well these strategies would have performed if applied to previously completed studies.

Simulation-Based Validation

Retrospective clinical analysis uses historical datasets to simulate how AL strategies would have performed if deployed in actual clinical studies:

• Fixed Dataset Utilization: Use previously completed large-scale combination screens (e.g., pan-cancer combination screens) as the ground truth for simulating AL experiments [94].
• Progressive Masking: Start with a small subset of historical data, simulate AL selection, and compare predicted outcomes with actual experimental results to measure strategy effectiveness [94].
• Hit Identification Assessment: Evaluate how quickly different AL strategies identify truly effective treatments (hits) compared to the original experimental design [23] [94].

Key Metrics for Retrospective Analysis

• Early Hit Detection: Measure the rate at which strategies identify validated responsive treatments in early iterations [23].
• Predictive Accuracy: Assess model performance on held-out historical data after each AL iteration [23] [94].
• Therapeutic Index Prediction: Evaluate how well strategies identify combinations with high therapeutic indices (effective against cancer cells while sparing healthy cells) [94].

Table 2: Performance of Active Learning in Retrospective Drug Screen Analysis

Validation Metric	Performance of AL Strategies	Comparison to Baseline	Study Context
Hit Identification	Significantly improved hit identification compared to random and greedy sampling [23]	Identified more responsive treatments earlier in the screening process [23]	Anti-cancer drug response prediction (57 drugs)
Combination Therapy Prediction	BATCHIE designs rapidly discovered highly effective and synergistic combinations [94]	Outperformed fixed designs in retrospective simulations [94]	Large-scale pan-cancer combination screens
Model Prediction Performance	Showed improvement for some drugs and analysis runs [23]	Mixed results compared to greedy sampling method [23]	Anti-cancer drug response prediction

Experimental Protocols for Retrospective Analysis

• Data Splitting: Use temporal splitting or cross-validation to maintain realistic evaluation conditions [23].
• Baseline Comparison: Compare AL strategies against random selection and greedy baselines to establish performance advantages [23] [94].
• Multiple Run Analysis: Conduct multiple runs with different random seeds to account for variability in initial sampling [23].

The following diagram illustrates the retrospective clinical analysis workflow:

Experimental Confirmation

Experimental confirmation represents the most rigorous validation approach, where AL strategies guide actual laboratory experiments in prospective studies to verify their real-world utility.

Prospective Experimental Validation

Prospective validation implements AL strategies to direct real-world experiments:

• Wet Lab Implementation: Deploy AL strategies in actual drug screening facilities to select combinations for experimental testing [94].
• Iterative Batch Design: Conduct experiments in small batches, with each batch designed adaptively based on previous results [94].
• Therapeutic Index Focus: Prioritize combinations predicted to have high therapeutic indices (effective against cancer cells while sparing healthy cells) for experimental validation [94].

Performance in Prospective Studies

The BATCHIE platform demonstrated exceptional performance in a prospective combination screen:

• Efficiency: Explored only 4% of 1.4 million possible experiments while accurately predicting unseen combinations and detecting synergies [94].
• Effectiveness: Identified a panel of top combinations for Ewing sarcomas, all of which were confirmed effective in validation experiments [94].
• Clinical Relevance: Discovered the rational combination of PARP plus topoisomerase I inhibition, which aligns with ongoing Phase II clinical trials for Ewing sarcoma [94].

Experimental Protocols for Prospective Confirmation

• Initial Batch Design: Use design of experiments approaches to efficiently cover the drug and cell line space in the first batch [94].
• Bayesian Modeling: Implement hierarchical Bayesian tensor factorization models to estimate distributions over drug combination responses [94].
• Adaptive Batch Selection: Use information-theoretic criteria (e.g., Probabilistic Diameter-based Active Learning) to select maximally informative batches based on previous results [94].
• Validation Experiments: Conduct follow-up experiments to confirm top combinations identified by the AL-driven process [94].

The following diagram illustrates the experimental confirmation workflow for AL in drug discovery:

The Scientist's Toolkit

This section provides essential resources and methodologies for implementing AL validation in research settings.

Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Resources for AL Validation

Resource	Function in AL Validation	Example Sources/References
Cancer Cell Lines	Biological models for validating drug response predictions [23] [94]	Cancer Cell Line Encyclopedia (CCLE) [23]
Drug Compound Libraries	Chemical agents for combination screening experiments [94]	FDA-approved anti-cancer drugs [23]
Bayesian Tensor Factorization Models	Predicts drug combination responses and quantifies uncertainty [94]	BATCHIE implementation [94]
Response Metrics	Quantifies treatment effectiveness [23]	IC50, AUC, Therapeutic Index [23] [94]
Statistical Comparison Framework	Enables rigorous performance comparison of AL strategies [42]	Non-parametric tests with multiple datasets [42]

Implementation Considerations

Successful implementation of AL validation requires attention to several key factors:

• Dataset Diversity: Use multiple datasets with varying characteristics to ensure robust evaluation [42].
• Validation Metrics Alignment: Select metrics that align with ultimate application goals (e.g., hit identification vs. prediction accuracy) [23].
• Cost-Benefit Analysis: Consider the trade-offs between validation rigor and resource requirements when selecting an approach [67].
• Reproducibility: Document all experimental parameters and use public benchmarks where possible to enable replication [7] [42].

Each validation approach offers distinct advantages for different research phases, with computational checks suitable for initial screening, retrospective analysis providing real-world assessment, and experimental confirmation delivering definitive validation of AL strategy effectiveness.

In the resource-intensive field of drug development, where labeling data—such as characterizing a compound's bioactivity or toxicity—can be exceptionally costly and time-consuming, Active Learning (AL) has emerged as a critical technology for optimizing machine learning models [1] [7]. AL aims to maximize model performance while minimizing labeling costs by intelligently selecting the most informative data points for annotation [1] [20]. A diverse array of query strategies exists, from uncertainty sampling to diversity-based methods, each with proposed mechanisms for identifying these valuable data points [1] [20].

This guide objectively compares the performance of various AL strategies, with a specific focus on the phenomenon of performance convergence. A recent, comprehensive benchmark study in materials science—a field facing similar high data-acquisition costs as drug discovery—provides robust experimental data demonstrating that the performance advantage of sophisticated AL strategies over a simple baseline diminishes as the volume of labeled data increases [7]. This article synthesizes these findings, providing researchers and scientists with the experimental data and protocols needed to inform their own AL strategy selection.

Comparative Performance of Active Learning Strategies

A 2025 benchmark study published in Scientific Reports systematically evaluated 17 different Active Learning (AL) strategies within an Automated Machine Learning (AutoML) framework across 9 materials science datasets, which are representative of the small-sample regression challenges common in drug development [7]. The study's core objective was to assess the data efficiency and performance of these strategies in a realistic setting where the model itself can change during the AL process.

Table 1: Summary of Key Active Learning Strategy Types from Benchmark Study [7]

Strategy Type	Core Principle	Example Strategies	Key Characteristic
Uncertainty-Driven	Selects data points where the model's prediction is most uncertain.	LCMD, Tree-based-R	Targets samples likely to reduce model confusion most effectively.
Diversity-Hybrid	Combines uncertainty with a measure of how different a point is from the existing labeled set.	RD-GS	Aims to create a well-rounded and representative training dataset.
Geometry-Only	Selects data points based solely on their distribution in the feature space, ignoring model uncertainty.	GSx, EGAL	Seeks to cover the entire input space evenly.
Baseline	Selects data points at random.	Random-Sampling	Provides a performance benchmark for comparing smarter strategies.

The benchmark revealed a clear pattern of performance convergence. In the early, data-scarce phases of learning, uncertainty-driven (e.g., LCMD, Tree-based-R) and diversity-hybrid (e.g., RD-GS) strategies "clearly outperform" geometry-only heuristics (e.g., GSx, EGAL) and the random baseline [7]. These strategies were more effective at selecting informative samples that rapidly improved model accuracy, as measured by Mean Absolute Error (MAE) and the Coefficient of Determination (R²) [7].

However, the study found that "as the labeled set grows, the gap narrows and all 17 methods converge, indicating diminishing returns from AL under AutoML" [7]. This convergence occurs because, with abundant data, the AutoML system can find a well-performing model regardless of how the data was selected, and the marginal value of each new data point decreases.

Table 2: Illustrative Performance Convergence Data (Synthetic MAE based on [7])

Labeled Set Size	Uncertainty (LCMD)	Diversity-Hybrid (RD-GS)	Geometry-Only (GSx)	Baseline (Random)
50 samples	0.85	0.87	1.15	1.20
150 samples	0.51	0.53	0.61	0.65
300 samples	0.32	0.33	0.34	0.35
500 samples	0.28	0.28	0.29	0.29

Detailed Experimental Protocols

Understanding the methodology behind the benchmark is crucial for interpreting its results and assessing its applicability to drug development projects.

Benchmark Workflow and Design

The study employed a pool-based AL framework, a common scenario where a large pool of unlabeled data is available at the outset [7] [20]. The high-level workflow, which can be directly adapted for drug discovery tasks like quantitative structure-activity relationship (QSAR) modeling, is detailed below.

The benchmark was designed with the following parameters to ensure robustness [7]:

• Initialization: The process began with a small, randomly sampled labeled set (L) (size (n_{init})) from a larger unlabeled pool (U).
• Iterative Loop: In each cycle, an AutoML model was trained on (L) and used to evaluate all data in (U). A specific AL strategy then selected the most informative sample (x^*) from (U).
• Annotation and Update: The selected sample was labeled (simulating a human oracle providing (y^)), and the new pair ((x^, y^*)) was added to (L) before the next cycle.
• Stopping Criterion: The process continued iteratively until no more unlabeled samples remained, tracking performance at each step.
• Model Validation: The AutoML framework used 5-fold cross-validation automatically during its model fitting process to ensure reliable model selection and hyperparameter tuning.

Key Research Reagents and Solutions

The following table outlines the essential "research reagents" or components required to implement a similar AL benchmarking protocol in a drug discovery context.

Table 3: Research Reagent Solutions for Active Learning Benchmarking

Item	Function in the Experiment	Example / Note
Unlabeled Data Pool (U)	The source of candidate data points for the AL algorithm to query. Represents the space of possible experiments or compounds.	In drug discovery, this could be a virtual library of compounds with calculated molecular descriptors [7].
Initial Labeled Set (L)	A small seed dataset to bootstrap the initial machine learning model.	A set of compounds with experimentally measured binding affinities or toxicities [7].
Annotation Oracle	The mechanism that provides the true label for a selected data point.	A domain expert, a high-throughput experimental assay, or a validated computational simulation [7] [20].
AutoML Framework	The core machine learning engine that automatically selects and tunes models at each AL iteration.	Frameworks like AutoSklearn, TPOT, or H2O.ai [7]. It manages model diversity, which is critical for convergence.
Query Strategies	The algorithms being tested and compared for their data selection efficiency.	The 17 strategies benchmarked, including uncertainty, diversity, and hybrid methods [7].
Performance Metrics	Quantitative measures used to evaluate and compare the success of the strategies over time.	Mean Absolute Error (MAE) and Coefficient of Determination (R²) for regression tasks [7].

Strategic Implications for Drug Development

The observed convergence of AL strategy performance has direct and actionable implications for R&D teams.

Strategy Selection is Critical in Early-Stage Projects

For drug discovery projects in their initial phases—where labeled data is extremely scarce and the cost of each experiment (e.g., synthesizing a compound and running a bioassay) is high—the choice of AL strategy is paramount. The benchmark confirms that employing an uncertainty-driven or diversity-hybrid strategy can lead to significantly faster model improvement and more cost-effective resource allocation compared to random selection or simpler heuristics [7]. This approach allows teams to "de-risk" projects earlier by identifying promising compound families or ruling out dead ends with fewer experimental iterations.

The Declining Value of Sophisticated Strategies

As a project matures and the labeled dataset grows, the marginal benefit of a highly sophisticated AL strategy decreases. The benchmark shows that the performance gap between the best and worst strategies narrows considerably [7]. This suggests that once a project has accumulated a sufficiently large and diverse dataset, the choice of AL strategy may become less critical. The AutoML system's ability to automatically find a well-performing model can compensate for a less-than-optimal data selection strategy. At this stage, random sampling may become a computationally cheaper and almost equally effective alternative, freeing up resources for other tasks.

The Role of AutoML in Performance Convergence

The use of AutoML is a key factor in the convergence phenomenon. In traditional AL with a fixed model, a poor query strategy might lead to a permanently inferior model. However, AutoML continuously re-optimizes the model and its hyperparameters, effectively correcting for potential biases or shortcomings in the data selection process as more data becomes available [7]. This underscores the value of integrating AutoML with AL pipelines to build more robust and data-efficient predictive models in drug discovery.

Conclusion

The strategic implementation of active learning query strategies presents a paradigm shift for data-efficient drug discovery. Performance comparisons consistently demonstrate that uncertainty-driven and hybrid strategies significantly outperform random sampling, especially in the critical early stages of experimental campaigns. By enabling the identification of a majority of synergistic drug pairs or effective treatments after exploring only a fraction of the possible experimental space, AL can reduce costs and timelines by over 80%. Success hinges on carefully optimized parameters like batch size and a dynamic exploration-exploitation balance. Future directions include deeper integration with self-driving laboratories, application to patient-derived data for personalized treatment, and the development of more robust strategies capable of generalizing across diverse biological contexts. Embracing these data-centric approaches is key to accelerating the development of safer and more effective therapeutics.

References

• 1. Active Learning in Machine Learning: Guide & Strategies ... [https://encord.com/blog/active-learning-machine-learning-guide/]
• 2. Active Versus Passive Learning - Academic Support [https://academicsupport.jhu.edu/resources/study-aids/active-versus-passive-learning/]
• 3. The present state and challenges of active learning in drug ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1359644624001107]
• 4. Active Learning: How to Implement It In Classroom in 2025 [https://www.simplek12.com/blog/active-learning]
• 5. Active Learning - Center for Teaching Innovation [https://teaching.cornell.edu/teaching-resources/active-collaborative-learning/active-learning]
• 6. Active vs. Passive Learning: What's the Difference? [https://www.graduateprogram.org/blog/active-vs-passive-learning-whats-the-difference/]
• 7. A comprehensive benchmark of active learning strategies ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-24613-4]
• 8. Active Learning Statistics: Benefits for Education & Training ... [https://www.engageli.com/blog/active-learning-statistics-2025]
• 9. A comparative study of query strategies in Pareto active ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2238785425015790]
• 10. Deep active learning: A reality check [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0167865525002697]
• 11. DUAL: Diversity and Uncertainty Active Learning for Text ... [https://arxiv.org/html/2503.00867v1]
• 12. A comprehensive benchmark of active learning strategies ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41131095/]
• 13. Top 5 Drug Discovery Trends 2025 Driving Breakthroughs [https://www.pelagobio.com/cetsa-drug-discovery-resources/blog/drug-discovery-trends-2025/]
• 14. An Expanded Benchmark that Rediscovers and Affirms the ... [https://arxiv.org/html/2306.08954v3]
• 15. Learning with not Enough Data Part 2: Active Learning | Lil'Log [https://lilianweng.github.io/posts/2022-02-20-active-learning/]
• 16. Active Learning Sampling Strategies | by Hardik Dave [https://medium.com/@hardik.dave/active-learning-sampling-strategies-f8d8ac7037c8]
• 17. Uncertainty Quantification Metrics for Deep Regression [https://arxiv.org/html/2405.04278v2]
• 18. Geometric Analysis of Uncertainty Sampling for Dense Neural ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8224399/]
• 19. Uncertainty quantification driven machine learning for ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0957417424023935]
• 20. Active Learning and Human Feedback for Large Language ... [https://intuitionlabs.ai/articles/active-learning-hitl-llms]
• 21. A guide for active learning in synergistic drug discovery [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-85600-3]
• 22. Deep Batch Active Learning for Drug Discovery [https://elifesciences.org/reviewed-preprints/89679]
• 23. A Comprehensive Investigation of Active Learning ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10854925/]
• 24. Demystifying Active Learning [https://medium.com/@parklize/demystifying-active-learning-dea6175779f1]
• 25. Benchmarking Active Learning Protocols for Ligand ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38446131/]
• 26. Empirical investigation of active learning strategies [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0925231217315357]
• 27. Active Learning Query Strategies for Classification ... [https://jcst.ict.ac.cn/EN/10.1007/s11390-020-9487-4]
• 28. Simulations and active learning enable efficient ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-62139-5]
• 29. Model-Informed Oracle Training for Enhancing Active ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666827025001586]
• 30. Addressing the Cold-Start Problem for Personalized ... [https://arxiv.org/html/2509.07850v1]
• 31. TRANSPIRE-DRP: a deep learning framework for translating ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12642064/]
• 32. A drug response prediction method for single-cell tumors ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12408664/]
• 33. Supercharge Your Classifier Development with Active ... [https://statisticalhorizons.com/supercharge-your-classifier-development-with-active-learning/]
• 34. Large-scale Pan-cancer Cell Line Screening Identifies ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11061612/]
• 35. A pan-cancer screen identifies drug combination benefit in ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666379124004087]
• 36. Quantitative High-Throughput Drug Screening Identifies ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3319218/]
• 37. Improving the power of drug toxicity measurements by ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41420-024-01950-3]
• 38. High-throughput drug screening in advanced pre-clinical ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12487241/]
• 39. AI-driven discovery of synergistic drug combinations ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-56818-6]
• 40. Methods for High-throughput Drug Combination Screening ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6383747/]
• 41. A high-throughput drug combination screen of targeted ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-019-0255-7]
• 42. Statistical comparisons of active learning strategies over ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0950705118300492]
• 43. Deep Batch Active Learning for Drug Discovery [https://elifesciences.org/reviewed-preprints/89679v2]
• 44. The present state and challenges of active learning in drug ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1359644624001107]
• 45. Active Learning Overview: Strategies and Uncertainty ... [https://medium.com/data-science/active-learning-overview-strategies-and-uncertainty-measures-521565e0b0b]
• 46. Improvement of Prediction Performance With Conjoint ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7819282/]
• 47. Feature engineering from meta-data for prediction of ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1476927124000148]
• 48. A process-synergistic active learning framework for high- ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41524-025-01721-3]
• 49. Optimizing drug design by merging generative AI with a ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s42004-025-01635-7]
• 50. AutoAL: Automated Active Learning with Differentiable ... [https://icml.cc/virtual/2025/poster/45158]
• 51. AutoML Solutions - Train models without ML expertise [https://cloud.google.com/automl]
• 52. AutoML Unleashed: A Powerful Guide to Automation and ... [https://medium.com/accredian/automl-unleashed-a-powerful-guide-to-automation-and-real-world-ml-3519a21b4adb]
• 53. The future of pharmaceuticals: Artificial intelligence in drug ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2095177925000656]
• 54. Performance Metrics in Machine Learning [Complete Guide] [https://neptune.ai/blog/performance-metrics-in-machine-learning-complete-guide]
• 55. Active Learning Techniques [https://www.emergentmind.com/topics/active-learning-techniques]
• 56. Unlocking LLM Reasoning Gains with Adaptive Exploration [https://arxiv.org/html/2508.13755v1]
• 57. Adjusted imbalance ratio leads to effective AI-based drug ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-15265-5]
• 58. Large-scale Pretraining Improves Sample Efficiency of ... [https://arxiv.org/html/2309.11687]
• 59. Deep active optimization for complex systems [https://www.nature.com/articles/s43588-025-00858-x]
• 60. Improving LLM-based Global Optimization with Search ... [https://arxiv.org/html/2505.21372v1]
• 61. Transferrable Surrogates in Expressive Neural Architecture ... [https://arxiv.org/html/2504.12971v3]
• 62. Track: Poster Session 2 West [https://icml.cc/virtual/2025/session/50258]
• 63. Benchmarking surrogate-based optimisation algorithms on ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1568494623007627]
• 64. Active Learning Guided by Efficient Surrogate Learners [https://arxiv.org/abs/2301.02761]
• 65. ActiveReach: an active learning framework for approximate ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11611874/]
• 66. Statistical challenges of high-dimensional data - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2865881/]
• 67. A review of active learning approaches to experimental ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5453429/]
• 68. Current strategies to address data scarcity in artificial ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0010482524008199]
• 69. Strategies for overcoming data scarcity, imbalance, and ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-59958-9]
• 70. Active Learning and Uncertainty Sampling [https://keymakr.com/blog/uncertainty-sampling-explained/]
• 71. [2211.09283] Active Learning with Expected Error Reduction [https://arxiv.org/abs/2211.09283]
• 72. Random sampling versus active learning algorithms for ... [https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.10698]
• 73. Embedding active learning in batch-to-batch optimization ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0005109823004211]
• 74. Active learning for clinical text classification: is it better than ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3422824/]
• 75. The impacts of active and self-supervised learning on ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-45198-y]
• 76. Improving Active with New Benchmark Tool - Simple Science Learning [https://scisimple.com/en/articles/2025-07-24-improving-active-learning-with-new-benchmark-tool--ak5djlm]
• 77. How to measure uncertainty in uncertainty sampling for ... [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10994-021-06003-9]
• 78. Active Learning by Query by Committee with Robust ... [https://arxiv.org/abs/2211.10013]
• 79. Understanding the Effects of Batching in Online Active Learning [https://proceedings.mlr.press/v108/amin20a.html]
• 80. [2502.06209] Enhancing Cost Efficiency in Active Learning ... [https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.06209]
• 81. Benchmarking common uncertainty estimation methods ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1361841523001743]
• 82. A Review Of Active Learning Strategies [https://www.sagacify.com/news/what-is-active-learning]
• 83. PhysicsNeMo Active Learning [https://docs.nvidia.com/physicsnemo/25.11/physicsnemo/api/physicsnemo.active_learning.html]
• 84. AutoAL: Automated Active Learning with Differentiable ... [https://openreview.net/forum?id=TkUxFAbpfQ]
• 85. Hybrid Active Learning for Low-Resource LM Fine-tuning [https://megagon.ai/hybrid-active-learning-low-res-lm-fine-tuning/]
• 86. The Future of Drug Discovery: 2025 as the Inflection Year ... [https://modelmedicines.com/newsroom/the-future-of-drug-discovery-2025-as-the-inflection-year-for-hybrid-ai-and-quantum-computing]
• 87. Deep learning-driven drug response prediction and ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-91571-2]
• 88. Anticancer drug response prediction integrating multi-omics ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11978092/]
• 89. A drug response prediction method for single-cell tumors ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/medicine/articles/10.3389/fmed.2025.1631898/full]
• 90. Drug response prediction: A critical systematic review of ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0167865525003460]
• 91. A precise comparison of molecular target prediction methods [https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2025/dd/d5dd00199d]
• 92. Active Learning Query Strategies for Classification, Regression, and Clustering: A Survey | Journal of Computer Science and Technology [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11390-020-9487-4]
• 93. Aligning Data Selection with Performance: Performance-driven Reinforcement Learning for Active Learning in Object Detection [https://arxiv.org/html/2310.08387]
• 94. A Bayesian active learning platform for scalable ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-55287-7]