Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 41 references

To Label or Not to Label: PALM -- A Predictive Model for Evaluating Sample Efficiency in Active Learning Models

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read The paper proposes that active learning accuracy trajectories follow a four-parameter curve, Eq. (13), which can be fit from a few early labeled-budget points and then extrapolated to predict the full learning curve.

desk verdict A useful descriptive model of AL curves, but the headline claim of accurate extrapolation from limited data is not supported by the evidence. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.15381 v1 pith:VLXGLE7J submitted 2025-07-21 cs.LG cs.AIcs.CV

Julia Machnio , Mads Nielsen , Mostafa Mehdipour Ghazi This is my paper
classification cs.LGcs.AIcs.CV
keywords activelearningcurvepredictionparametricmodelcoverageefficiencyself-supervisedembeddingsannotationbudgetsample
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper proposes PALM, a parametric equation intended to describe how a model's accuracy grows as an active learning budget increases. The central claim is that fitting the equation $A = A_{\max}[1 - (1-\delta)^{((B/b)+\alpha)^{\beta}}]$ to accuracy measurements at a few early cumulative budgets predicts the full learning curve, and that the fitted parameters carry named meanings: achievable accuracy, coverage efficiency, early-stage performance, and scalability. If that claim holds, practitioners could compare active learning strategies and plan annotation budgets without labeling large fractions of a dataset. The paper validates the claim on CIFAR-10/100 and ImageNet subsets across several active learning strategies, with and without self-supervised embeddings.

What carries the argument

The central object is Eq. (13), the normalized accuracy function. It grows out of a random-covering calculation: if $B$ labeled samples are placed independently and uniformly, the expected covered fraction of the space is $1-(1-\delta)^B$, which the paper turns into an accuracy law by assuming accuracy in covered regions is $A_{\max}$ and then generalizing the exponent to $((B/b)+\alpha)^{\beta}$. The added parameters let a handful of fitted points reproduce both fast-converging and delayed learning curves, and normalizing $B$ by the per-iteration budget $b$ keeps the exponent numerically stable. This equation carries the paper's predictive claim: once its four parameters are estimated from partial observations, the whole curve, final accuracy, and label requirements for a target accuracy are determined.

What would settle it

Fit Eq. (13) to the first 10% of the labeled budget for a method with a slow, nearly linear early curve (the paper's own BYOL case) and then compare the predicted accuracy at the full budget with the observed value; the central claim fails if the extrapolation departs from the measured curve by more than the roughly 2% error band that the paper reports for its fits.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's core discovery is that active learning accuracy curves can be summarized and extrapolated by four parameters through the normalized accuracy function $A = A_{\max}[1 - (1-\delta)^{((B/b)+\alpha)^{\beta}}]$ (Eq. 13), where $B$ is the cumulative number of labeled samples, $b$ is the mean budget per iteration, $\delta$ is the expected fraction of the data space covered by one labeled sample, $\alpha$ shifts the effective start of learning, $\beta$ controls how quickly accuracy gains scale with budget, and $A_{\max}$ is the asymptotic accuracy. Fitting these parameters by nonlinear regression to accuracy observations at a few budget points yields a predicted trajectory for the rest of the annotation process. The paper presents this as a unified and interpretable model of active learning dynamics, and reports that it generalizes across datasets, budgets, and strategies, with fitted parameters that distinguish sample-efficient methods from slow starters.

Load-bearing premise

The paper's load-bearing premise is that an active learning accuracy curve follows the parametric shape $A = A_{\max}[1 - (1-\delta)^{((B/b)+\alpha)^{\beta}}]$, with parameters fitted from a few early observations that remain trustworthy for extrapolation, even though the derivation assumes uncovered regions contribute negligible accuracy and labeled samples are placed independently and uniformly.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Annotation budgets can be planned from a small initial labeling run: given a few early accuracy readings, PALM predicts how many labels a target accuracy needs.
  • Active learning strategies can be compared by interpretable parameters ($A_{\max}$, $\delta$, $\alpha$, $\beta$) instead of final accuracy alone, exposing differences in early learning and coverage.
  • Self-supervised embeddings measurably raise sample efficiency under PALM, with higher $\delta$ and lower $\alpha$ values, giving a quantitative basis for choosing embeddings in a pipeline.
  • For slow-starting methods such as BYOL, PALM needs more early budget points to avoid mistaking a nearly linear rise for a plateau, as the paper itself observes.
  • Under tight budgets, PALM lets a practitioner pick the strategy with the best predicted return per label rather than the best end-of-run accuracy.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The functional form of Eq. (13) is a stretched-exponential-style growth curve, so if the parameters are stable across settings, PALM could serve as a prior or a stopping-time predictor for active learning scenarios the paper does not test, such as noisy-label or semi-supervised pipelines.
  • Because the derivation sets uncovered-region accuracy to zero, the parameter $\alpha$ is left to absorb all generalization from unlabeled regions; a cleaner extension would reintroduce an explicit uncovered-region accuracy term, changing how $\alpha$ should be interpreted.
  • A testable extension is to use $\delta$ or $\beta$ as a selection signal: an active learning strategy that greedily maximizes the estimated per-sample coverage might accelerate learning if PALM's coverage interpretation holds.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces PALM, a four-parameter parametric model for active learning (AL) accuracy trajectories, A = Amax [1 - (1 - δ)^((B/b + α)^β)] (Eq. 13), where Amax is the asymptotic accuracy, δ is a coverage-efficiency parameter, α is an early-stage offset, β is a scaling exponent, and b is the budget per iteration. The authors claim that fitting these parameters to a limited number of early labeled-budget points allows accurate prediction of the full learning curve, as well as interpretable comparison of AL strategies across datasets, budgets, and self-supervised embeddings. They validate the model on CIFAR-10/100 and ImageNet-50/100/200 with several AL strategies and embeddings, reporting fitted parameters and visual curve comparisons.

Significance. If the predictive claim were substantiated, PALM would be a useful and interpretable tool for AL evaluation, allowing researchers to extrapolate performance from small annotation budgets and to compare strategies through meaningful parameters. The paper is commendable for targeting a real gap in AL benchmarking, for releasing code, and for reporting extensive experiments across diverse datasets and methods. The four-parameter form is simple and potentially generalizable. However, the current evidence does not establish the central predictive claim: the fitted parameters are unstable across fitting windows, no held-out prediction error is reported, the derivation contains an assumption that contradicts the paper's own motional motivation, and the BYOL experiments show a qualitative failure in the very regime the paper emphasizes. These issues are load-bearing because the paper's contribution is explicitly predictive, not merely descriptive.

major comments (4)
  1. [Supplementary Table 1 (CIFAR-10, no embeddings)] The fitted parameters are highly unstable with respect to the number of points used for fitting. For Random sampling, Amax is 32.6 with 6 fitting points, 100.0 with 10, 20, 50, and 100 points, 93.8 with 500 points, and 90.7 with 1000 points; δ and β drift correspondingly. This non-identifiability means that predictions from partial observations depend on the arbitrary choice of the fitting window, so the claim that PALM predicts future performance from limited data is not well-defined unless a stable parameter regime or a principled fitting procedure is established.
  2. [Section 4, Limited Budgets; Figure 3] No quantitative held-out evaluation is reported. Figure 3 compares predicted and actual curves visually only, and the 'within 2%' statement in the CIFAR-100 discussion refers to deviations of the full-curve fit, not to extrapolation from partial budgets. To support the headline claim, the authors should report prediction errors (e.g., RMSE or MAE in accuracy points) on held-out budget points after fitting only on early points, ideally broken down by strategy, dataset, and number of fitting points.
  3. [Supplementary A.2.4, Eq. (31) to Eq. (32)] The derivation of the generalized accuracy function assumes A_UC ≈ 0 to simplify Eq. (31) into Eq. (32). This directly contradicts Definition 5 and the main-text emphasis on the contribution of uncovered regions to generalization, and it is not a harmless simplification: the BYOL experiments (Section 4) show a regime where early accuracy is dominated by uncovered-region behavior and the model fits a plateau. The assumption should be stated as an explicit modeling limitation, or the derivation should be revised to include A_UC as a fitted parameter or an explicit approximation with stated validity conditions.
  4. [Section 4, Large-Scale Datasets (BYOL)] The paper reports that for BYOL, whose early accuracy curve is slow and nearly linear, 'PALM fits the curve as if the method has already plateaued.' This is a qualitative failure of extrapolation exactly in the limited-budget regime that the abstract and introduction claim to support. The paper provides no quantitative error measure for this case and no guidance on when the model's extrapolation can be trusted. This issue must be addressed, for example by reporting held-out errors for slow-starting methods or by defining a validity region for predictions based on the fitted parameters.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Supplementary Tables 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8] Many fitted parameter combinations are degenerate (e.g., δ = 0 with α ≈ 80 and β ≈ 3.7, or Amax = 100 with δ = 0.000). Reporting mean, min, and max across repetitions is helpful, but the high incidence of boundary solutions suggests that the optimization is hitting constraints; a discussion of parameter identifiability and of the quality of individual fits (e.g., R² or residual norm) would clarify which results are trustworthy.
  2. [Equations (13) and (14)-(15)] The notation mixes B as the cumulative budget and b as the mean budget per iteration. In Definition 7, b is introduced as a known quantity, but in Section 4 the fitted parameter tables do not report b; it would be useful to state explicitly how b is determined and whether it is fixed or fitted for each experiment.
  3. [Supplementary A.2.7, Eq. (50)] The derivative-based comparison condition appears to be stated without derivation and has a dimensional inconsistency (δ multiplies a quantity that depends on 1/b and α/B). Since this is not needed for the main predictive claim, it should either be derived correctly or moved to a clearly labeled heuristic discussion.
  4. [Figure 3] The figure's legend is hard to parse because the rows alternate between no-embedding and SimCLR-embedding settings but this is only noted in the caption. Adding row labels directly in the figure or a clearer subcaption would improve readability.
  5. [Throughout] The authors write 'AUC' for accuracy in uncovered regions in Eq. (10), which collides with the standard area-under-the-curve abbreviation. A different symbol, such as A_U, would avoid confusion, especially since AUC is used in the introduction in its standard sense.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: PALM's extrapolation of the fitted Eq. (13) to future budgets is an ordinary parametric prediction, and the only self-citation is not load-bearing.

full rationale

The central claim is that the parametric form A = Amax[1 - (1 - delta)^((B/b + alpha)^beta)] (Eq. 13), fitted to early observed accuracy values, can be evaluated at larger budgets to predict the remainder of the learning curve. This is a standard fitted-curve extrapolation: the future accuracy values are not inputs to the fit, so the prediction does not reduce by construction to the training observations. The random-covering derivation leading to Eq. (8)-(11) is an independent probabilistic argument, and the later introduction of alpha and beta in Definitions 6-7 is an explicit modeling generalization rather than a concealed reuse of the target result. The paper's own admission that BYOL is fitted as if it had already plateaued (Section 4) and the large variation of fitted Amax with the number of fitting points (Table 1) are empirical validation concerns, not circularity. The interpretation of the fitted parameter delta as 'coverage efficiency' is a modeling label rather than an independently measured quantity, so the coverage conclusions are under-validated but not circular. No load-bearing self-citation chain exists; the only overlapping-author reference ([36]) is a related-work citation on hippocampus segmentation. Thus the derivation chain is self-contained, and no step is equivalent to its inputs by definition.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model's predictive equation rests on a random-covering formula, an unverified accuracy decomposition, and two free-form parameters added ad hoc. The fitted parameters are not independently validated; the paper's conclusions about coverage efficiency and scalability depend on interpreting these fitted values, which is a circularity risk. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • Amax (maximum achievable accuracy) = Varies per method and fitting set; e.g., CIFAR-10 Random ranges from 32.6 to 100 depending on number of fitting points…
    Fitted via nonlinear least squares to observed accuracy curves; it defines the asymptotic level of the model and is not derived from independent measurement.
  • delta (coverage efficiency per labeled sample) = e.g., 0.094 for Margin on CIFAR-10 without embeddings; 0.535 with embeddings (Section 4)
    Fitted to accuracy data and later interpreted as coverage efficiency, but not validated against any direct coverage measurement.
  • alpha (early-stage offset) = e.g., 10.643 for Margin on CIFAR-100 without embeddings; 0.068 with embeddings (Section 4)
    Fitted parameter that shifts the effective starting point of the learning curve; introduced ad hoc in Definition 6.
  • beta (scaling exponent) = e.g., 0.651 for Entropy on CIFAR-100 with embeddings (Section 4)
    Fitted parameter controlling the growth rate of accuracy with budget; introduced ad hoc without derivation from learning theory.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Random covering model: objects and samples are placed independently and uniformly, each covering a fixed volume fraction delta (Section 2.1, Definition 3)
    AL selected samples are neither independent nor uniformly distributed; the coverage formula 1 - (1 - delta)^s is used as an analogy, not a measured property.
  • domain assumption Test accuracy is a coverage-weighted average of accuracy in covered and uncovered regions (Eq 10)
    This decomposition assumes a random test point falls into covered or uncovered regions with probability PC, which is not derived for classifier accuracy.
  • ad hoc to paper A_UC is approximately zero in deriving the generalized accuracy function (Supplementary A.2.4)
    This assumption eliminates the uncovered-region term, yet the main text (Section 2.2) describes A_UC as crucial; the two statements are inconsistent.
  • ad hoc to paper The generalized functional form with exponent beta and shift alpha (Eq 12, Definition 6)
    No derivation from learning theory; parameters are introduced to improve the fit, and their interpretations are assigned post hoc.
  • domain assumption Effectively infinite unlabeled pool (Section 4, AL Behavior)
    The paper notes this simplification causes drift when the pool is nearly exhausted; real AL experiments deplete the pool.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of To Label or Not to Label: PALM -- A Predictive Model for Evaluating Sample Efficiency in Active Learning Models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VLXGLE7J

@misc{pith2026250715381,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: To Label or Not to Label: PALM -- A Predictive Model for Evaluating Sample Efficiency in Active Learning Models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VLXGLE7J}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.15381}
}
read the original abstract

Active learning (AL) seeks to reduce annotation costs by selecting the most informative samples for labeling, making it particularly valuable in resource-constrained settings. However, traditional evaluation methods, which focus solely on final accuracy, fail to capture the full dynamics of the learning process. To address this gap, we propose PALM (Performance Analysis of Active Learning Models), a unified and interpretable mathematical model that characterizes AL trajectories through four key parameters: achievable accuracy, coverage efficiency, early-stage performance, and scalability. PALM provides a predictive description of AL behavior from partial observations, enabling the estimation of future performance and facilitating principled comparisons across different strategies. We validate PALM through extensive experiments on CIFAR-10/100 and ImageNet-50/100/200, covering a wide range of AL methods and self-supervised embeddings. Our results demonstrate that PALM generalizes effectively across datasets, budgets, and strategies, accurately predicting full learning curves from limited labeled data. Importantly, PALM reveals crucial insights into learning efficiency, data space coverage, and the scalability of AL methods. By enabling the selection of cost-effective strategies and predicting performance under tight budget constraints, PALM lays the basis for more systematic, reproducible, and data-efficient evaluation of AL in both research and real-world applications. The code is available at: https://github.com/juliamachnio/PALM.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.15381 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Illustration of the PALM method for comparing AL [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. PALM approximation of AL curves on CIFAR-10 ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. PALM predictions of AL training curves fitted using varying numbers of cumulative budget points, as indicated in the legend. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: PALM predictions of AL curves on ImageNet subsets. Each plot compares the performance of different AL strategies combined [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Active distance-based clustering using k- medoids

    Amin Aghaee, Mehrdad Ghadiri, and Mahdieh Soley- mani Baghshah. Active distance-based clustering using k- medoids. In Advances in Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining: 20th Pacific-Asia Conference, PAKDD 2016, Auck- land, New Zealand, April 19-22, 2016, Proceedings, Part I 20, pages 253–264. Springer, 2016. 1, 11

    work page 2016

  2. [2]

    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. arXiv preprint arXiv:1906.03671, 2019. 2, 11

    arXiv 1906

  3. [3]

    The power of ensembles for active learning in image classification

    William H Beluch, Tim Genewein, Andreas N ¨urnberger, and Jan M K ¨ohler. The power of ensembles for active learning in image classification. In Proceedings of the IEEE con- ference on computer vision and pattern recognition , pages 9368–9377, 2018. 2

    work page 2018

  4. [4]

    Think twice before selection: Federated evidential active learning for medical image analysis with domain shifts

    Jiayi Chen, Benteng Ma, Hengfei Cui, and Yong Xia. Think twice before selection: Federated evidential active learning for medical image analysis with domain shifts. In Proceed- ings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 11439–11449, 2024. 1

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    A simple framework for contrastive learning of visual representations

    Ting Chen, Simon Kornblith, Mohammad Norouzi, and Ge- offrey Hinton. A simple framework for contrastive learning of visual representations. In International conference on ma- chine learning, pages 1597–1607. PmLR, 2020. 2, 5

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    Improved baselines with momentum contrastive learning

    Xinlei Chen, Haoqi Fan, Ross Girshick, and Kaiming He. Improved baselines with momentum contrastive learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2003.04297, 2020. 2, 5

    arXiv 2003

  7. [7]

    An empirical study of training self-supervised vision transformers

    Xinlei Chen, Saining Xie, and Kaiming He. An empirical study of training self-supervised vision transformers. InPro- ceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on com- puter vision, pages 9640–9649, 2021. 2, 5

    2021

  8. [8]

    Class-balanced loss based on effective number of samples

    Yin Cui, Menglin Jia, Tsung-Yi Lin, Yang Song, and Serge Belongie. Class-balanced loss based on effective number of samples. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 9268–9277,

    work page

Show all 41 references
  1. [9]

    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 2009 IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 248–255. Ieee, 2009. 5

    2009

  2. [10]

    Deep bayesian active learning with image data

    Yarin Gal, Riashat Islam, and Zoubin Ghahramani. Deep bayesian active learning with image data. In International conference on machine learning, pages 1183–1192. PMLR,

  3. [11]

    Discriminative ac- tive learning

    Daniel Gissin and Shai Shalev-Shwartz. Discriminative ac- tive learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.06347, 2019. 2

    1907 arXiv

  4. [12]

    The why, when, and how to use active learning in large-data-driven 3d object detection for safe autonomous driving: An empirical explo- ration

    Ross Greer, Bjørk Antoniussen, Mathias V Andersen, An- dreas Møgelmose, and Mohan M Trivedi. The why, when, and how to use active learning in large-data-driven 3d object detection for safe autonomous driving: An empirical explo- ration. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.16634, 2024. 1

    2024 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Bootstrap your own latent-a new approach to self-supervised learning

    Jean-Bastien Grill, Florian Strub, Florent Altch ´e, Corentin Tallec, Pierre Richemond, Elena Buchatskaya, Carl Doersch, Bernardo Avila Pires, Zhaohan Guo, Mohammad Ghesh- laghi Azar, et al. Bootstrap your own latent-a new approach to self-supervised learning. Advances in neur...

    2020

  6. [14]

    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. arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.02794, 2022. 2, 5, 11

    2022 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Deep residual learning for image recognition

    Kaiming He, Xiangyu Zhang, Shaoqing Ren, and Jian Sun. Deep residual learning for image recognition. In Proceed- ings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 770–778, 2016. 5

    2016

  8. [16]

    Off to a good start: Using clustering to select the initial training set in active learning

    Rong Hu, Brian Mac Namee, and Sarah Jane Delany. Off to a good start: Using clustering to select the initial training set in active learning. In FLAIRS, 2010. 2

    2010

  9. [17]

    Random coverings in several dimensions

    Svante Janson. Random coverings in several dimensions

  10. [18]

    One- shot active learning for image segmentation via contrastive learning and diversity-based sampling

    Qiuye Jin, Mingzhi Yuan, Qin Qiao, and Zhijian Song. One- shot active learning for image segmentation via contrastive learning and diversity-based sampling. Knowledge-Based Systems, 241:108278, 2022. 2

    2022

  11. [19]

    Query- by-committee improvement with diversity and density in batch active learning

    Seho Kee, Enrique Del Castillo, and George Runger. Query- by-committee improvement with diversity and density in batch active learning. Information Sciences, 454:401–418,

  12. [20]

    Learning multiple layers of features from tiny images, 2009

    Alex Krizhevsky, Geoffrey Hinton, et al. Learning multiple layers of features from tiny images, 2009. 5

    2009

  13. [21]

    A sequential algorithm for training text clas- sifiers: Corrigendum and additional data

    David D Lewis. A sequential algorithm for training text clas- sifiers: Corrigendum and additional data. In Acm Sigir Fo- rum, pages 13–19. ACM New York, NY , USA, 1995. 2, 11

    1995

  14. [22]

    Semantic segmentation active learning with scene coverage coreset

    Hailun Liang, Sunyuan Qiang, Hui Ma, Jun Wan, and Yanyan Liang. Semantic segmentation active learning with scene coverage coreset. In Chinese Conference on Biometric Recognition, pages 238–247. Springer, 2024. 2

    2024

  15. [23]

    Exploring diversity- based active learning for 3d object detection in autonomous driving

    Jinpeng Lin, Zhihao Liang, Shengheng Deng, Lile Cai, Tao Jiang, Tianrui Li, Kui Jia, and Xun Xu. Exploring diversity- based active learning for 3d object detection in autonomous driving. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 2024. 1

    2024

  16. [24]

    A unified approach to coreset learning

    Alaa Maalouf, Gilad Eini, Ben Mussay, Dan Feldman, and Margarita Osadchy. A unified approach to coreset learning. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Sys- tems, 2022. 2

    2022

  17. [25]

    Dcom: Active learning for all learners

    Inbal Mishal and Daphna Weinshall. Dcom: Active learning for all learners. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.01804, 2024. 2, 3, 5

    2024

  18. [26]

    Realistic evaluation of deep active learn- ing for image classification and semantic segmentation

    Sudhanshu Mittal, Joshua Niemeijer, ¨Ozg¨un C ¸ ic ¸ek, Maxim Tatarchenko, Jan Ehrhardt, J ¨org P Sch ¨afer, Heinz Handels, and Thomas Brox. Realistic evaluation of deep active learn- ing for image classification and semantic segmentation. In- ternational Journal of Computer V...

    2025

  19. [27]

    Towards robust and reproducible active learning using neural networks

    Prateek Munjal, Nasir Hayat, Munawar Hayat, Jamshid Sourati, and Shadab Khan. Towards robust and reproducible active learning using neural networks. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 223–232, 2022. 5

    2022

  20. [28]

    How to measure uncertainty in uncertainty sampling for active learning

    Vu-Linh Nguyen, Mohammad Hossein Shaker, and Eyke H¨ullermeier. How to measure uncertainty in uncertainty sampling for active learning. Machine Learning, 111(1):89– 122, 2022. 2 9

    2022

  21. [29]

    Introduction to probability models

    Sheldon M Ross. Introduction to probability models. Aca- demic press, 2014. 2

    2014

  22. [30]

    Active hidden markov models for information extraction

    Tobias Scheffer, Christian Decomain, and Stefan Wrobel. Active hidden markov models for information extraction. In International symposium on intelligent data analysis , pages 309–318. Springer, 2001. 2, 11

    2001

  23. [31]

    Active learning for convolu- tional neural networks: A core-set approach

    Ozan Sener and Silvio Savarese. Active learning for convolu- tional neural networks: A core-set approach. arXiv preprint arXiv:1708.00489, 2017. 2, 11

    2017 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Active learning literature survey

    Burr Settles. Active learning literature survey. 2009. 1, 2, 11

    2009

  25. [33]

    Scan: Learning to classify images without labels

    Wouter Van Gansbeke, Simon Vandenhende, Stamatios Georgoulis, Marc Proesmans, and Luc Van Gool. Scan: Learning to classify images without labels. InEuropean con- ference on computer vision, pages 268–285. Springer, 2020. 5

    2020

  26. [34]

    Active clustering of biological sequences

    Konstantin V oevodski, Maria-Florina Balcan, Heiko R¨oglin, Shang-Hua Teng, and Yu Xia. Active clustering of biological sequences. The Journal of Machine Learning Research , 13 (1):203–225, 2012. 1, 11

    2012

  27. [35]

    A comprehensive survey on deep active learning in medical image analysis

    Haoran Wang, Qiuye Jin, Shiman Li, Siyu Liu, Manning Wang, and Zhijian Song. A comprehensive survey on deep active learning in medical image analysis. Medical Image Analysis, page 103201, 2024. 1

    2024

  28. [36]

    Active trans- fer learning for 3d hippocampus segmentation

    Ji Wu, Zhongfeng Kang, Sebastian Nørgaard Llambias, Mostafa Mehdipour Ghazi, and Mads Nielsen. Active trans- fer learning for 3d hippocampus segmentation. In Workshop on Medical Image Learning with Limited and Noisy Data , pages 224–234. Springer, 2023. 1

    2023

  29. [37]

    Representative sampling for text classification using support vector machines

    Zhao Xu, Kai Yu, V olker Tresp, Xiaowei Xu, and Jizhi Wang. Representative sampling for text classification using support vector machines. In Advances in Information Re- trieval: 25th European Conference on IR Research, ECIR 2003, Pisa, Italy, April 14–16, 2003. Proceedings 25...

    2003

  30. [38]

    Active learning through a covering lens

    Ofer Yehuda, Avihu Dekel, Guy Hacohen, and Daphna Weinshall. Active learning through a covering lens. Ad- vances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 35: 22354–22367, 2022. 2, 3

    2022

  31. [39]

    Anomaly detection for iot systems using active learning

    Mohammed Zakariah and Abdulaziz S Almazyad. Anomaly detection for iot systems using active learning. Applied Sci- ences, 13(21):12029, 2023. 1

    2023

  32. [40]

    Labelbench: A comprehensive framework for bench- marking adaptive label-efficient learning

    Jifan Zhang, Yifang Chen, Gregory Canal, Stephen Muss- mann, Arnav M Das, Gantavya Bhatt, Yinglun Zhu, Jef- frey Bilmes, Simon Shaolei Du, Kevin Jamieson, et al. Labelbench: A comprehensive framework for bench- marking adaptive label-efficient learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:23...

    2023 arXiv

  33. [41]

    BADGE [2] combines un- certainty and diversity by clustering in gradient space us- ing a k-means++ scheme

    minimizes the maximum distance between selected points and the remaining pool. BADGE [2] combines un- certainty and diversity by clustering in gradient space us- ing a k-means++ scheme. Diversity plays a crucial role in early-stage selection to ensure broader coverage of the i...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.