TABLE 3.
Performances (SVM and LR) of two active learning methods with single machine learning (ML) algorithms.
Two AL methods’ performances for SVM | TP | FP | TN | FN | Recall | Precision | F-score | Precision (recall = 0.99) | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Uncertainty sampling, a single ML algorithm, and no validation data update | 1st round | 190 | 2 | 198 | 10 | 0.95 | 0.99 | 0.97 | 0.97 |
2nd round | 134 | 0 | 200 | 66 | 0.67 | 1.00 | 0.80 | 0.94 | |
Uncertainty sampling and random negative sampling, a single ML algorithm, and no validation data update | 1st round | 176 | 0 | 400 | 24 | 0.88 | 1.00 | 0.94 | 0.96 |
2nd round | 138 | 0 | 400 | 62 | 0.69 | 1.00 | 0.82 | 0.94 | |
Two AL methods’ performances for LG | TP | FP | TN | FN | Recall | Precision | F-score | Precision (Recall = 0.99) | |
Uncertainty sampling, a single ML algorithm, and no validation data update | 1st round | 187 | 7 | 193 | 13 | 0.94 | 0.97 | 0.95 | 0.96 |
2nd round | 161 | 1 | 199 | 39 | 0.81 | 0.99 | 0.89 | 0.94 | |
Uncertainty sampling and random negative sampling, a single ML algorithm, and no validation data update | 1st round | 176 | 5 | 395 | 24 | 0.88 | 0.97 | 0.92 | 0.95 |
2nd round | 159 | 1 | 399 | 41 | 0.80 | 0.99 | 0.88 | 0.94 |