I have a suggestion about the first plot you show in the writeup. From what I can see, it is based on a finite pool of data and so it undersells active learning

I have a suggestion about the first plot you show in the writeup. From what I can see, it is based on a finite pool of data and so it undersells active learning: performance shoots up as AL finds the interesting points, but then the curve flattens and is less steep than the random curve as the "boring" points get added. It would be nice to see the same curve for a bigger training pool where AL was able to get to a target accuracy without running out of valuable training points. I suspect that would make the difference between the two curves much more stark. As it is, it just looks like AL does better for very low data but to get to high accuracy you need to use the whole dataset anyway so it's a wash between AL and random.