REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by
Uncertainty Herding: One Active Learning Method for All Label Budgets
T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash
Pith's one-line read This paper proposes a single active learning method, Uncertainty Herding, that it claims reliably works well at both low and high label budgets, matching or beating state-of-the-art methods in almost every tested setting.
desk verdict A genuinely useful new objective and a correct finite-sample bound, but the paper's strongest claim about all budgets is carried by two heuristics the theory does not cover. read the letter →
The pith
A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.
The reading
What carries the argument
The load-bearing object is the uncertainty coverage functional $\mathrm{UC}_{k_\sigma}(S)=\mathbb{E}_x\left[U(x;f)\max_{x'\in S}k_\sigma(x,x';g)\right]$, an expectation over data points of the product of an uncertainty score and the maximum kernel similarity to any selected point. Because it is nonnegative, monotone, and submodular in $S$, greedy batch selection inherits the classical $(1-1/e)$ approximation guarantee for the estimated objective. The interpolation between regimes is carried by two parameter-adaptation heuristics: choose the temperature $\tau^*$ that minimizes expected calibration error on a random split of the labeled set so that a poorly trained model's uncertainty scores become nearly constant, and set the kernel lengthscale $\sigma^*$ to the minimum pairwise distance between already-labeled points in feature space so that coverage becomes increasingly local and eventually reduces to selecting the most uncertain points.
What would settle it
On a dataset where the model is already well calibrated even with a tiny labeled set, compute the variance of $U(x;f_{\tau^*})$ over the unlabeled pool at budgets 20, 40, and 80. If that variance stays clearly above zero at low budgets yet UHerding still matches MaxHerding, the low-budget behavior is not coming from the calibration heuristic; if the variance stays high and UHerding drops below MaxHerding, the heuristic is load-bearing. Either outcome settles the mechanism behind the paper's central claim.
Extended reading notes
Core claim
The paper's central discovery is that the apparent clash between low-budget and high-budget active learning is not a boundary between two regimes but a parameter regime of a single objective. Uncertainty coverage is defined as $\mathrm{UC}_{k_\sigma}(S)=\mathbb{E}_x\left[U(x;f)\max_{x'\in S}k_\sigma(x,x';g)\right]$, and its empirical estimate is maximized greedily. When the uncertainty function is nearly constant the objective reduces to generalized coverage, and when the kernel radius shrinks to zero it reduces to a sum of uncertainty scores. The paper selects the softmax temperature $\tau^*$ by minimizing expected calibration error on a split of the current labeled set and sets the kernel lengthscale $\sigma^*$ to the minimum pairwise distance between labeled points in feature space, so the same algorithm shifts from representation-driven to uncertainty-driven selection as labels accumulate. It proves that greedy optimization of the empirical estimate reaches at least $(1-1/e)$ of the optimal true coverage minus a finite-sample error, and reports that this one method matches or beats all baselines across budgets on image classification and transfer-learning benchmarks.
Load-bearing premise
The method's versatility rests entirely on two parameter heuristics: the calibration-error-chosen temperature must flatten uncertainty scores into an almost-constant function when the labeled set is tiny, and the radius chosen as the closest labeled pair must keep shrinking as labels grow, since the paper's own ablations show that disabling either heuristic makes the method lose to both MaxHerding and Margin.
Editorial extensions
If this is right
- With a fixed uncertainty measure—margin, entropy, or confidence—UHerding performs about equally well, so practitioners can choose the uncertainty notion that is cheapest or most natural for their problem.
- At small budgets the algorithm behaves like MaxHerding-style representative coverage, at large budgets like uncertainty sampling, and between those extremes it interpolates smoothly rather than requiring a discrete regime switch.
- The same temperature and radius adaptation also improves existing hybrid methods such as BADGE when their clustering step is replaced with greedy kernel k-medoids.
- The greedy selection inherits a $(1-1/e)$ approximation guarantee for the empirical uncertainty coverage and a corresponding near-optimality bound for the true coverage, so the method does not give up its theoretical grounding to gain robustness across budgets.
Reading between the lines
- Beyond the paper, the two parameter heuristics are a general recipe: any uncertainty-weighted coverage objective with a kernel over fixed features could be slotted into the same self-adjusting scheme, so the interpolation idea is likely portable to other model classes such as regression or language models.
- A direct test of the mechanism would measure the variance of $U(x;f_{\tau^*})$ over the unlabeled pool at very small budgets; the paper's Proposition 3 predicts it should be near zero, and the method's low-budget wins would be expected to vanish where it is not.
- The labeled-set split used for temperature selection consumes scarce labels at the lowest budgets; a natural extension is to estimate the temperature on a fixed validation set or on pseudo-labels so the fewest possible labels are diverted from training.
Editorial analysis
A structured set of objections, weighed in public.
Referee Report
Summary. The paper proposes a single active learning method, Uncertainty Herding (UHerding), intended to work well across low, middle, and high label budgets. The method greedily maximizes an 'uncertainty coverage' objective that weights generalized coverage by an uncertainty function, and it adaptively chooses a temperature τ* (by ECE minimization on a validation split) and a kernel length scale σ* (as the minimum pairwise feature distance in the labeled set). The authors prove a finite-sample uniform-convergence bound (Theorem 2) and a (1−1/e) greedy approximation guarantee (Corollary 6) for the coverage objective, and they give limit statements (Propositions 3 and 4) showing the objective reduces to generalized coverage when uncertainty is constant and to pure uncertainty selection when σ→0. Experiments on CIFAR-10/100, TinyImageNet, DomainNet, and ImageNet report that UHerding matches or beats existing methods across regimes, and ablations show that the adaptive parameters are essential to this performance. The paper also draws connections between UHerding and several hybrid methods such as weighted k-means, ALFA-Mix, and BADGE.
Significance. If the practical claim is fully supported, the paper would make a useful contribution to active learning: it proposes a single objective that interpolates between representation-based and uncertainty-based acquisition, provides a nontrivial finite-sample guarantee for the coverage objective itself, and demonstrates broad empirical improvement over many baselines. The theoretical part has genuine value: Theorem 2 gives a uniform bound over all size-B subsets, correcting a gap in earlier coverage bounds, and Corollary 6 correctly combines submodularity with that bound. The connections to weighted k-means, ALFA-Mix, and BADGE are also informative and may help practitioners understand those methods. However, the central practical claim depends on two adaptive heuristics in Section 3.2 that are not covered by the theory and are only weakly validated; the paper's own ablation shows that UHerding without these heuristics fails to beat MaxHerding at low budgets and Margin at high budgets. The empirical summary in Table 1 omits error bars and significance tests, which is a serious gap given the strength of the 'only method' claim.
major comments (4)
- [§3.2, Algorithm 1, Corollary 6] The central approximation guarantee does not apply to the method as actually run. Corollary 6 assumes fixed τ and σ, whereas Algorithm 1 recomputes τ* and σ* at every round. The greedy marginal-gain step in lines 4–6 optimizes the objective for the current parameters, but the theorem's (1−1/e) and finite-sample error statements are for a single fixed objective. Moreover, the adaptive σ* is defined as the minimum pairwise distance in Lt, so as |Lt| grows σ* shrinks and the Lipschitz constant Lσ = sqrt(2/e)/σ in Theorem 2 diverges; the finite-sample bound therefore becomes vacuous in the high-budget regime where the method is claimed to behave like uncertainty sampling. The paper should either state the guarantee for the actual adaptive procedure, or clearly delineate that the theory covers only the fixed-parameter objective and provide alternative justification for the adaptive case.
- [§3.2, Propositions 3 and 4, §4.4/Fig. 8a] The limiting propositions are essentially definitional, and the paper does not prove that the proposed heuristics realize the required conditions. Proposition 3 requires U(x;f) → c, but the ECE-minimizing temperature on a random split of the current labeled set is not shown to produce near-constant uncertainty, especially at very low budgets where the validation split further shrinks an already tiny training set. Proposition 4 requires σ→0, but the minimum pairwise labeled-set distance is a heuristic that can be controlled by a single near-duplicate pair and has no proven relationship to the coverage transition. The importance of these heuristics is demonstrated by the ablation in §4.4: with fixed parameters, UHerding is worse than MaxHerding at low budgets and worse than Margin at high budgets. Thus the entire practical claim rests on unproven mechanisms. The authors should either prove or rigorously empirically validate that the heuristics produce the claimed limiting behavior across the tested and new settings.
- [Table 1 and §4] The headline empirical claim that UHerding 'matches or beats state-of-the-art in essentially all cases' and is 'the only method' that works in both regimes is not supported by the reported statistics. Table 1 reports only mean improvement over Random, with no error bars, confidence intervals, or significance tests; many entries are close (e.g., CIFAR10 low-budget UHerding 5.5 vs. MaxHerding 5.0, and DomainNet high-budget UHerding 2.3 vs. MaxHerding 1.0), and the underlying runs number only 3–5. Some of these differences are plausibly within run-to-run noise. The paper should include variances, per-budget error bars, and preferably statistical comparisons or effect sizes for the key claims, and should also be explicit about which differences are robust across seeds.
- [§4.3 and Figure 6/Table 1] The transfer-learning comparisons are presented as supporting the main claim, but the reported setup varies across datasets (DeiT Small for CIFAR-100, DeiT Base for DomainNet, fixed DINO features for ImageNet) and the number of runs is not consistently stated. In particular, Table 1 aggregates three very different transfer-learning settings into a single 'High' column, which can hide regime-dependent failures. Please report the number of seeds for each transfer experiment, include error bars, and avoid aggregating across qualitatively different tasks without a clear justification.
minor comments (5)
- [§4, ActiveFT description] The text reads 'centeroids' in the description of ActiveFT; this should be 'centroids'.
- [Figure 1b] The right panel's axes are labeled only 'Selected'; please clarify that the horizontal axis is the number of selected/labeled points and indicate which curve is τ and which is σ.
- [§3.2, Proposition 4] Proposition 4 assumes g is injective on U, but the paper does not discuss whether the SimCLR or DINO feature extractors used in experiments are injective on the finite unlabeled pools; a short remark on this assumption would be helpful.
- [§1, footnote 1] The statement that the authors' replication attempts of SelectAL gave 'extremely inconsistent' results is not verifiable; it would be useful to provide a brief description of the replication setup or to soften this claim.
- [Algorithm 1] In line 3, the vector k is defined using σ* which is computed on the same line; for readability, separate the computation of σ* from the computation of k.
Circularity Check
No circularity: the interpolation behavior is by design, the theoretical guarantees are standard submodular and estimation bounds, and the central performance claims rest on external benchmarks rather than on definitions or load-bearing self-citations.
full rationale
The paper's UCoverage objective is defined as a U-weighted GCoverage, so Propositions 3 and 4 are immediate limiting cases of that definition: constant U makes the objective proportional to GCoverage, and σ→0 makes it proportional to a sum of uncertainties. This is not circular because the paper uses these propositions as design motivations for the adaptive τ and σ heuristics, not as evidence that the heuristics succeed; the success of the heuristics is established empirically in Sections 4.1–4.4 and Appendix C. Corollary 6 is a standard (1−1/e) greedy submodular optimization result combined with the uniform-convergence bound of Theorem 2, both built on external results (Nemhauser et al., 1978; Cucker & Smale, 2001). The self-citations to Bae et al. (2024) supply the GCoverage/MaxHerding background and are not load-bearing: the present paper re-runs comparisons against MaxHerding and other baselines on multiple datasets, and the motivating observation that greedy selection is fast and effective is re-examined in the paper's own experiments. The equivalences in Section 3.4 explicitly state that existing methods are UHerding only after replacing k-means with greedy kernel k-medoids and choosing a specific uncertainty measure; this is an honest connection, not a renaming that masks the source of the results. One genuine limitation is that Corollary 6's guarantee holds for fixed τ and σ, whereas Algorithm 1 adapts these parameters at every round; this is a rigor gap between theory and practice, not a case where a conclusion is equivalent to its premises by construction. No circular step is exhibited, so the appropriate finding is no significant circularity.
Assumptions & free parameters
free parameters (3)
- Temperature τ* (per round) =
not fixed; selected from candidate set T by minimizing ECE on a validation split of Lt
- Kernel length scale σ* (per round) =
not fixed; set to min_{u,v∈Lt, u≠v} ||g(u)-g(v)||
- Temperature candidate set T =
unspecified in paper
assumptions (7)
- standard math Hoeffding inequality and covering-number bound (Cucker-Smale Prop. 5)
- standard math Submodularity and Nemhauser et al. approximation guarantee
- domain assumption Kernel kσ is Lipschitz and bounded, feature space bounded by R, uncertainty bounded by Umax
- domain assumption Self-supervised feature extractor g provides a semantically meaningful metric for coverage
- ad hoc to paper Well-calibrated poorly trained models have near-constant uncertainty; temperature scaling on a small validation split yields this at low budgets
- ad hoc to paper The minimum pairwise distance in the labeled set is a suitable radius that shrinks to 0 as |L| grows
- domain assumption The unlabeled pool is an i.i.d. sample from the data distribution for the estimation bound
Cite this review
Pith. "Pith review of Uncertainty Herding: One Active Learning Method for All Label Budgets." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OJKDHT3L
@misc{pith2026241220644,
author = {Pith},
title = {Pith review of: Uncertainty Herding: One Active Learning Method for All Label Budgets},
year = {2026},
howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OJKDHT3L}},
note = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.20644}
}
read the original abstract
Most active learning research has focused on methods which perform well when many labels are available, but can be dramatically worse than random selection when label budgets are small. Other methods have focused on the low-budget regime, but do poorly as label budgets increase. As the line between "low" and "high" budgets varies by problem, this is a serious issue in practice. We propose uncertainty coverage, an objective which generalizes a variety of low- and high-budget objectives, as well as natural, hyperparameter-light methods to smoothly interpolate between low- and high-budget regimes. We call greedy optimization of the estimate Uncertainty Herding; this simple method is computationally fast, and we prove that it nearly optimizes the distribution-level coverage. In experimental validation across a variety of active learning tasks, our proposal matches or beats state-of-the-art performance in essentially all cases; it is the only method of which we are aware that reliably works well in both low- and high-budget settings.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
Combining Discrepancy-Confusion Uncertainty and Calibration Diversity for Active Fine-Grained Image Classification
DECERN selects annotation samples by combining a fusion-based uncertainty score with a diversity calibration that balances closeness to uncertainty-weighted cluster centers and distance from known class anchors.
Reference graph
Works this paper leans on
-
[1]
Active distance-based clustering using k-medoids
Amin Aghaee, Mehrdad Ghadiri, and Mahdieh Soleymani Baghshah. Active distance-based clustering using k-medoids. In PAKDD, 2016
work page 2016
-
[2]
On warm-starting neural network training
Jordan Ash and Ryan P Adams. On warm-starting neural network training. In NeurIPS, 2020
work page 2020
-
[3]
Gone fishing: Neural active learning with fisher embeddings
Jordan Ash, Surbhi Goel, Akshay Krishnamurthy, and Sham Kakade. Gone fishing: Neural active learning with fisher embeddings. 2021
work page 2021
-
[4]
Deep batch active learning by diverse, uncertain gradient lower bounds
Jordan T Ash, Chicheng Zhang, Akshay Krishnamurthy, John Langford, and Alekh Agarwal. Deep batch active learning by diverse, uncertain gradient lower bounds. In ICLR, 2020
work page 2020
-
[5]
Generalized coverage for more robust low-budget active learning
Wonho Bae, Junhyug Noh, and Danica J Sutherland. Generalized coverage for more robust low-budget active learning. In ECCV, 2024
work page 2024
-
[6]
Batch active learning using determinantal point processes
Erdem B y k, Kenneth Wang, Nima Anari, and Dorsa Sadigh. Batch active learning using determinantal point processes. In NeurIPS, 2019
work page 2019
-
[7]
Emerging properties in self-supervised vision transformers
Mathilde Caron, Hugo Touvron, Ishan Misra, Herv \'e J \'e gou, Julien Mairal, Piotr Bojanowski, and Armand Joulin. Emerging properties in self-supervised vision transformers. In ICCV, 2021
2021
-
[8]
A simple framework for contrastive learning of visual representations
Ting Chen, Simon Kornblith, Mohammad Norouzi, and Geoffrey Hinton. A simple framework for contrastive learning of visual representations. In ICML, 2020
2020
Show all 61 references
-
[9]
A closer look at few-shot classification
Wei-Yu Chen, Yen-Cheng Liu, Zsolt Kira, Yu-Chiang Frank Wang, and Jia-Bin Huang. A closer look at few-shot classification. In ICLR, 2019
2019
-
[10]
Super-samples from kernel herding
Yutian Chen, Max Welling, and Alex Smola. Super-samples from kernel herding. In UAI, 2010
2010
-
[11]
On the mathematical foundations of learning
Felipe Cucker and Steve Smale. On the mathematical foundations of learning. Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society, 2001
2001
-
[12]
ImageNet : A large-scale hierarchical image database
Jia Deng, Wei Dong, Richard Socher, Li-Jia Li, Kai Li, and Li Fei-Fei. ImageNet : A large-scale hierarchical image database. In CVPR, 2009
2009
-
[13]
Dual strategy active learning
Pinar Donmez, Jaime G Carbonell, and Paul N Bennett. Dual strategy active learning. In ECML, 2007
2007
-
[14]
Bridging diversity and uncertainty in active learning with self-supervised pre-training
Paul Doucet, Benjamin Estermann, Till Aczel, and Roger Wattenhofer. Bridging diversity and uncertainty in active learning with self-supervised pre-training. In ICLR Workshop, 2024
2024
-
[15]
Selecting influential examples: Active learning with expected model output changes
Alexander Freytag, Erik Rodner, and Joachim Denzler. Selecting influential examples: Active learning with expected model output changes. In ECCV, 2014
2014
-
[16]
Deep bayesian active learning with image data
Yarin Gal, Riashat Islam, and Zoubin Ghahramani. Deep bayesian active learning with image data. In ICML, 2017
2017
-
[17]
Unraveling meta-learning: Understanding feature representations for few-shot tasks
Micah Goldblum, Steven Reich, Liam Fowl, Renkun Ni, Valeriia Cherepanova, and Tom Goldstein. Unraveling meta-learning: Understanding feature representations for few-shot tasks. In ICML, 2020
2020
-
[18]
On calibration of modern neural networks
Chuan Guo, Geoff Pleiss, Yu Sun, and Kilian Q Weinberger. On calibration of modern neural networks. In ICML, 2017
2017
-
[19]
Optimistic active-learning using mutual information
Yuhong Guo and Russell Greiner. Optimistic active-learning using mutual information. In IJCAI, 2007
2007
-
[20]
How to select which active learning strategy is best suited for your specific problem and budget
Guy Hacohen and Daphna Weinshall. How to select which active learning strategy is best suited for your specific problem and budget. In NeurIPS, 2024
2024
-
[21]
Active learning on a budget: Opposite strategies suit high and low budgets
Guy Hacohen, Avihu Dekel, and Daphna Weinshall. Active learning on a budget: Opposite strategies suit high and low budgets. In ICML, 2022
2022
-
[22]
Deep residual learning for image recognition
Kaiming He, Xiangyu Zhang, Shaoqing Ren, and Jian Sun. Deep residual learning for image recognition. In CVPR, 2016
2016
-
[23]
Active and continuous exploration with deep neural networks and expected model output changes
Christoph K \"a ding, Erik Rodner, Alexander Freytag, and Joachim Denzler. Active and continuous exploration with deep neural networks and expected model output changes. In NIPSW, 2016
2016
-
[24]
a ding, Erik Rodner, Alexander Freytag, Oliver Mothes, Bj \
Christoph K \"a ding, Erik Rodner, Alexander Freytag, Oliver Mothes, Bj \"o rn Barz, Joachim Denzler, and Carl Zeiss AG. Active learning for regression tasks with expected model output changes. In BMVC, 2018
2018
-
[25]
Finding groups in data: an introduction to cluster analysis
Leonard Kaufman and Peter J Rousseeuw. Finding groups in data: an introduction to cluster analysis. John Wiley & Sons, 2009
2009
-
[26]
Batchbald: Efficient and diverse batch acquisition for deep bayesian active learning
Andreas Kirsch, Joost Van Amersfoort, and Yarin Gal. Batchbald: Efficient and diverse batch acquisition for deep bayesian active learning. In NeurIPS, 2019
2019
-
[27]
Learning multiple layers of features from tiny images, 2009
Alex Krizhevsky. Learning multiple layers of features from tiny images, 2009
2009
-
[28]
Cifar-100 (canadian institute for advanced research)
Alex Krizhevsky, Vinod Nair, and Geoffrey Hinton. Cifar-100 (canadian institute for advanced research). URL http://www.cs.toronto.edu/ kriz/cifar.html
-
[29]
Tidal: Learning training dynamics for active learning
Seong Min Kye, Kwanghee Choi, Hyeongmin Byun, and Buru Chang. Tidal: Learning training dynamics for active learning. In ICCV, 2023
2023
-
[30]
Heterogeneous uncertainty sampling for supervised learning
David D Lewis and Jason Catlett. Heterogeneous uncertainty sampling for supervised learning. In Machine learning proceedings, 1994
1994
-
[31]
A sequential algorithm for training text classifiers
David D Lewis and William A Gale. A sequential algorithm for training text classifiers. In SIGIR, 1994
1994
-
[32]
Low budget active learning via wasserstein distance: An integer programming approach
Rafid Mahmood, Sanja Fidler, and Marc T Law. Low budget active learning via wasserstein distance: An integer programming approach. In ICLR, 2022
2022
-
[33]
Tiny imagenet, 2017
Mohammed Ali mnmoustafa. Tiny imagenet, 2017. URL https://kaggle.com/competitions/tiny-imagenet
2017
-
[34]
Making look-ahead active learning strategies feasible with neural tangent kernels
Mohamad Amin Mohamadi, Wonho Bae, and Danica J Sutherland. Making look-ahead active learning strategies feasible with neural tangent kernels. In NeurIPS, 2022
2022
-
[35]
Obtaining well calibrated probabilities using bayesian binning
Mahdi Pakdaman Naeini, Gregory Cooper, and Milos Hauskrecht. Obtaining well calibrated probabilities using bayesian binning. In AAAI, 2015
2015
-
[36]
G. L. Nemhauser, L. A. Wolsey, and M. L. Fisher. An analysis of approximations for maximizing submodular set functions—i. Mathematical Programming, 1978
1978
-
[37]
Active learning using pre-clustering
Hieu T Nguyen and Arnold Smeulders. Active learning using pre-clustering. In ICML, 2004
2004
-
[38]
Active learning by feature mixing
Amin Parvaneh, Ehsan Abbasnejad, Damien Teney, Gholamreza Reza Haffari, Anton Van Den Hengel, and Javen Qinfeng Shi. Active learning by feature mixing. In CVPR, 2022
2022
-
[39]
Moment matching for multi-source domain adaptation
Xingchao Peng, Qinxun Bai, Xide Xia, Zijun Huang, Kate Saenko, and Bo Wang. Moment matching for multi-source domain adaptation. In ICCV, 2019
2019
-
[40]
Toward optimal active learning through monte carlo estimation of error reduction
Nicholas Roy and Andrew McCallum. Toward optimal active learning through monte carlo estimation of error reduction. In ICML, 2001
2001
-
[41]
Active hidden M arkov models for information extraction
Tobias Scheffer, Christian Decomain, and Stefan Wrobel. Active hidden M arkov models for information extraction. In ISIDA, 2001
2001
-
[42]
Fast k-medoids clustering in R ust and P ython
Erich Schubert and Lars Lenssen. Fast k-medoids clustering in R ust and P ython. Journal of Open Source Software, 2022
2022
-
[43]
Faster k-medoids clustering: improving the PAM , CLARA , and CLARANS algorithms
Erich Schubert and Peter J Rousseeuw. Faster k-medoids clustering: improving the PAM , CLARA , and CLARANS algorithms. In Similarity Search and Applications: 12th International Conference, SISAP 2019, Newark, NJ, USA, October 2--4, 2019, Proceedings 12, 2019
2019
-
[44]
Fast and eager k-medoids clustering: O(k) runtime improvement of the PAM , CLARA , and CLARANS algorithms
Erich Schubert and Peter J Rousseeuw. Fast and eager k-medoids clustering: O(k) runtime improvement of the PAM , CLARA , and CLARANS algorithms. Information Systems, 2021
2021
-
[45]
Active learning for convolutional neural networks: A core-set approach
Ozan Sener and Silvio Savarese. Active learning for convolutional neural networks: A core-set approach. In ICLR, 2018
2018
-
[46]
Active learning literature survey
Burr Settles. Active learning literature survey. University of Wisconsin-Madison Department of Computer Sciences, 2009
2009
-
[47]
An analysis of active learning strategies for sequence labeling tasks
Burr Settles and Mark Craven. An analysis of active learning strategies for sequence labeling tasks. In EMNLP, 2008
2008
-
[48]
Multiple-instance active learning
Burr Settles, Mark Craven, and Soumya Ray. Multiple-instance active learning. 2007
2007
-
[49]
Training data-efficient image transformers & distillation through attention
Hugo Touvron, Matthieu Cord, Matthijs Douze, Francisco Massa, Alexandre Sablayrolles, and Herv \'e J \'e gou. Training data-efficient image transformers & distillation through attention. In ICML, 2021
2021
-
[50]
Active clustering of biological sequences
Konstantin Voevodski, Maria-Florina Balcan, Heiko R \"o glin, Shang-Hua Teng, and Yu Xia. Active clustering of biological sequences. In JMLR, 2012
2012
-
[51]
A new active labeling method for deep learning
Dan Wang and Yi Shang. A new active labeling method for deep learning. In IJCNN, 2014
2014
-
[52]
Weinberger, and Laurens van der Maaten
Yan Wang, Wei-Lun Chao, Kilian Q. Weinberger, and Laurens van der Maaten. Simpleshot: Revisiting nearest-neighbor classification for few-shot learning. arXiv:1911.04623, 2019
1911 arXiv
-
[53]
Active finetuning: Exploiting annotation budget in the pretraining-finetuning paradigm
Yichen Xie, Han Lu, Junchi Yan, Xiaokang Yang, Masayoshi Tomizuka, and Wei Zhan. Active finetuning: Exploiting annotation budget in the pretraining-finetuning paradigm. In CVPR, 2023
2023
-
[54]
Representative sampling for text classification using support vector machines
Zhao Xu, Kai Yu, Volker Tresp, Xiaowei Xu, and Jizhi Wang. Representative sampling for text classification using support vector machines. In ECIR, 2003
2003
-
[55]
Active learning through a covering lens
Ofer Yehuda, Avihu Dekel, Guy Hacohen, and Daphna Weinshall. Active learning through a covering lens. In NeurIPS, 2022
2022
-
[56]
Diverse mini-batch active learning
Fedor Zhdanov. Diverse mini-batch active learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1901.05954, 2019
1901 arXiv
-
[57]
Combining active learning and semi-supervised learning using gaussian fields and harmonic functions
Xiaojin Zhu, John Lafferty, and Zoubin Ghahramani. Combining active learning and semi-supervised learning using gaussian fields and harmonic functions. In ICML Workshop, 2003
2003
-
[58]
write newline
" write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 gl...
-
[59]
@esa (Ref
\@ifxundefined[1] #1\@undefined \@firstoftwo \@secondoftwo \@ifnum[1] #1 \@firstoftwo \@secondoftwo \@ifx[1] #1 \@firstoftwo \@secondoftwo [2] @ #1 \@temptokena #2 #1 @ \@temptokena \@ifclassloaded agu2001 natbib The agu2001 class already includes natbib coding, so you should ...
-
[60]
\@lbibitem[] @bibitem@first@sw\@secondoftwo \@lbibitem[#1]#2 \@extra@b@citeb \@ifundefined br@#2\@extra@b@citeb \@namedef br@#2 \@nameuse br@#2\@extra@b@citeb \@ifundefined b@#2\@extra@b@citeb @num @parse #2 @tmp #1 NAT@b@open@#2 NAT@b@shut@#2 \@ifnum @merge>\@ne @bibitem@firs...
-
[61]
@open @close @open @close and [1] URL: #1 \@ifundefined chapter * \@mkboth \@ifxundefined @sectionbib * \@mkboth * \@mkboth\@gobbletwo \@ifclassloaded amsart * \@ifclassloaded amsbook * \@ifxundefined @heading @heading NAT@ctr thebibliography [1] @ \@biblabel @NAT@ctr \@bibset...
Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.