arxiv: 2604.12945 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-14 · 💻 cs.LG · cs.CV

Recognition: unknown

Adaptive Data Dropout: Towards Self-Regulated Learning in Deep Neural Networks

Amar Gahir , Varshil Patel , Shreyank N Gowda

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 15:34 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.LG cs.CV

keywords adaptive data dropoutself-regulated learningdata selectionefficient trainingdeep neural networksimage classificationstochastic update

0 comments

The pith

Adaptive Data Dropout dynamically adjusts training data subsets using accuracy feedback to reduce effective training steps while keeping accuracy competitive.

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

The paper introduces Adaptive Data Dropout as a method for training deep neural networks more efficiently by avoiding uniform sampling of all data across every epoch. It instead adapts the subset of training data on the fly, increasing or decreasing exposure according to shifts in the model's training accuracy. This draws from the idea of self-regulated learning, where the system uses a lightweight stochastic rule to modulate data dropout online and balance exploration with consolidation. Experiments on image classification benchmarks indicate the approach can cut down on the number of effective training steps compared to static dropout schedules without losing competitive accuracy. The central mechanism treats data selection as a responsive process rather than a predetermined one.

Core claim

We propose Adaptive Data Dropout, a simple framework that dynamically adjusts the subset of training data based on performance feedback. Inspired by self-regulated learning, our approach treats data selection as an adaptive process, increasing or decreasing data exposure in response to changes in training accuracy. We introduce a lightweight stochastic update mechanism that modulates the dropout schedule online, allowing the model to balance exploration and consolidation over time. Experiments on standard image classification benchmarks show that our method reduces effective training steps while maintaining competitive accuracy compared to static data dropout strategies.

What carries the argument

A lightweight stochastic update mechanism that increases or decreases the amount of training data exposure in direct response to observed changes in training accuracy.

If this is right

Models can reach competitive accuracy using fewer effective training steps on image classification tasks.
Data exposure becomes responsive to performance signals rather than following a fixed reduction schedule.
The training process can shift between broader data exploration and focused consolidation as accuracy evolves.
Training efficiency improves compared to non-adaptive data dropout methods without added complexity.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The same accuracy-feedback loop could be tested on non-image tasks such as language modeling to check if it generalizes.
Tracking accuracy changes over time might highlight which samples matter most at different stages of learning.
Pairing the adaptive rule with other training accelerations like gradient clipping could produce additive efficiency gains.

Load-bearing premise

That changes in training accuracy give a stable and sufficient signal for correctly deciding when to increase or decrease data exposure without creating instability or biased learning.

What would settle it

Training the method on standard image classification benchmarks like CIFAR-10 or ImageNet and finding that it requires more effective steps or yields lower final accuracy than static dropout baselines would show the adaptation does not deliver the claimed efficiency.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.12945 by Amar Gahir, Shreyank N Gowda, Varshil Patel.

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Adaptive data dropout dynamically adjusts training data [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Adaptive data dropout dynamically selects training sam [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Conceptual illustration of adaptive data exposure as a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Pareto trade-off between Top-1 accuracy and effective [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Number of training samples used per epoch under Adaptive Data Dropout. The model progressively reduces data usage but [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Deep neural networks are typically trained by uniformly sampling large datasets across epochs, despite evidence that not all samples contribute equally throughout learning. Recent work shows that progressively reducing the amount of training data can improve efficiency and generalization, but existing methods rely on fixed schedules that do not adapt during training. In this work, we propose Adaptive Data Dropout, a simple framework that dynamically adjusts the subset of training data based on performance feedback. Inspired by self-regulated learning, our approach treats data selection as an adaptive process, increasing or decreasing data exposure in response to changes in training accuracy. We introduce a lightweight stochastic update mechanism that modulates the dropout schedule online, allowing the model to balance exploration and consolidation over time. Experiments on standard image classification benchmarks show that our method reduces effective training steps while maintaining competitive accuracy compared to static data dropout strategies. These results highlight adaptive data selection as a promising direction for efficient and robust training. Code will be released.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The paper adds a simple online stochastic adjustment to data dropout based on training accuracy changes, but the experiments stay too high-level to confirm real efficiency gains or stable behavior.

read the letter

The core idea is an adaptive data dropout rule that tweaks the amount of training data on the fly using observed shifts in training accuracy. It moves beyond the fixed reduction schedules in earlier work by adding a lightweight feedback loop that tries to balance exploration and consolidation during training. That incremental step is the main novelty, and the description stays straightforward without heavy machinery. The authors also flag that code will be released, which is useful for anyone wanting to test it directly. On standard image classification tasks the abstract claims it cuts effective training steps while holding competitive accuracy against static baselines, which is the practical hook if it holds up. The framing around self-regulated learning is mostly motivational and does not drive the technical contribution. The soft spots sit in the experimental support. No quantitative deltas, no statistical tests, no ablation on update frequency or thresholds, and no checks on whether the accuracy signal actually produces unbiased trajectories or just oscillates. Training accuracy is noisy and plateaus early, so the concern that the mechanism could collapse to something close to random or fixed dropout is reasonable and unaddressed in what is shown. Without those details the efficiency claim stays preliminary. This is the kind of paper that would interest researchers already working on data-efficient training or curriculum-style methods. A reader who wants a quick practical tweak might skim it for the update rule, but anyone needing reproducible gains would wait for stronger validation. It is coherent enough on its own terms to deserve a serious referee who can ask for the missing ablations and signal analysis rather than a desk reject.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes Adaptive Data Dropout, a framework that dynamically adjusts the subset of training data during deep neural network training based on observed changes in training accuracy. It employs a lightweight stochastic update mechanism to increase or decrease data exposure online, inspired by self-regulated learning, in contrast to fixed schedules in prior progressive data reduction methods. Experiments on standard image classification benchmarks are reported to show that the approach reduces effective training steps while maintaining competitive accuracy relative to static data dropout strategies.

Significance. If the central efficiency claim holds under rigorous validation, the method could provide a simple, online alternative to fixed data dropout schedules, potentially improving training efficiency and robustness without requiring complex hyperparameter tuning. The planned code release supports reproducibility, which is a strength for a methods-oriented contribution in this area.

major comments (2)

The core adaptivity mechanism depends on using changes in training accuracy as the feedback signal to modulate data exposure via the stochastic update rule. Training accuracy is a high-variance, saturating metric that plateaus early and is sensitive to batch noise and optimization dynamics; no analysis of update frequency, threshold sensitivity, stability, or comparison to more reliable signals (e.g., validation loss or gradient norms) is provided, which directly undermines the claim of reliable reduction in effective training steps.
The abstract and method description supply no quantitative deltas, baseline details, statistical tests, or ablation studies on the adaptive rule. This leaves the central experimental claim preliminary and makes it impossible to evaluate whether the adaptivity provides a genuine improvement over static strategies or reduces to a random/fixed schedule in practice.

minor comments (2)

The abstract refers to 'competitive accuracy' without specifying the exact metrics, datasets, or comparison methods; these details should be expanded in the results section with tables or figures for clarity.
Consider adding a short discussion of potential failure modes, such as instability when accuracy plateaus, to better contextualize the method's limitations.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback. We address each major comment below and commit to revisions that strengthen the manuscript's claims with additional analysis and quantitative details.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: The core adaptivity mechanism depends on using changes in training accuracy as the feedback signal to modulate data exposure via the stochastic update rule. Training accuracy is a high-variance, saturating metric that plateaus early and is sensitive to batch noise and optimization dynamics; no analysis of update frequency, threshold sensitivity, stability, or comparison to more reliable signals (e.g., validation loss or gradient norms) is provided, which directly undermines the claim of reliable reduction in effective training steps.

Authors: We acknowledge the limitations of training accuracy as a noisy and saturating signal. Our design choice prioritizes a fully online mechanism without requiring validation data, consistent with the self-regulated learning motivation and the goal of simplicity. In the revision, we will add a dedicated analysis subsection covering: empirical evaluation of update frequency and threshold sensitivity, stability metrics across training trajectories, and comparisons to alternative signals such as smoothed validation loss or gradient norms where computationally feasible. This will directly support the reliability of the observed efficiency gains. revision: yes
Referee: The abstract and method description supply no quantitative deltas, baseline details, statistical tests, or ablation studies on the adaptive rule. This leaves the central experimental claim preliminary and makes it impossible to evaluate whether the adaptivity provides a genuine improvement over static strategies or reduces to a random/fixed schedule in practice.

Authors: We agree that the current presentation of results is insufficiently detailed. The revised manuscript will expand the experimental section to include: specific quantitative deltas (e.g., effective step reductions and accuracy differences), explicit baseline descriptions (fixed dropout rates, random schedules), statistical significance testing (means and standard deviations over multiple random seeds), and targeted ablations on the adaptive rule to demonstrate that performance exceeds what would be achieved by equivalent static or random policies. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: heuristic adaptive rule is independent of its inputs

full rationale

The paper introduces Adaptive Data Dropout as a procedural heuristic that modulates data exposure via a stochastic update driven by observed changes in training accuracy. No equations, derivations, or first-principles claims appear that reduce the claimed efficiency gain to a fitted parameter, self-definition, or self-citation chain. The method is presented as an independent addition inspired by self-regulated learning, with the central claim resting on empirical benchmark results rather than any reduction to its own inputs. This is the common case of a non-circular empirical proposal.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The proposal rests on the domain assumption that training accuracy trajectory is a reliable proxy for deciding data exposure; no free parameters or new entities are explicitly introduced in the abstract.

axioms (1)

domain assumption Training accuracy changes are a reliable signal for adjusting data exposure to balance exploration and consolidation.
Invoked when describing the stochastic update mechanism that responds to performance feedback.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5460 in / 1163 out tokens · 77033 ms · 2026-05-10T15:34:58.979415+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 5 canonical work pages · 3 internal anchors

[1]

Mar- gin based active learning

Maria-Florina Balcan, Andrei Broder, and Tong Zhang. Mar- gin based active learning. InInternational Conference on Computational Learning Theory, pages 35–50. Springer,
[2]

Curriculum learning

Yoshua Bengio, J ´erˆome Louradour, Ronan Collobert, and Ja- son Weston. Curriculum learning. InProceedings of the 26th annual international conference on machine learning, pages 41–48, 2009. 2

2009
[3]

Elizabeth L Bjork, Robert A Bjork, et al. Making things hard on yourself, but in a good way: Creating desirable difficulties to enhance learning.Psychology and the real world: Essays illustrating fundamental contributions to society, 2(59-68),
[4]

Selection via proxy: Efficient data se- lection for deep learning

Cody Coleman, Christopher Yeh, Stephen Mussmann, Baha- ran Mirzasoleiman, Peter Bailis, Percy Liang, Jure Leskovec, and Matei Zaharia. Selection via proxy: Efficient data se- lection for deep learning. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations. 2
[5]

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. In2009 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 248–255. IEEE, 2009. 5

2009
[6]

An Image is Worth 16x16 Words: Transformers for Image Recognition at Scale

Alexey Dosovitskiy, Lucas Beyer, Alexander Kolesnikov, Dirk Weissenborn, Xiaohua Zhai, Thomas Unterthiner, Mostafa Dehghani, Matthias Minderer, Georg Heigold, Syl- vain Gelly, et al. An image is worth 16x16 words: Trans- formers for image recognition at scale.arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.11929, 2020. 5

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010
[7]

Key trends and figures in machine learning, 2023

Epoch AI. Key trends and figures in machine learning, 2023. Accessed: 2025-10-19. 1

2023
[8]

What neural networks memorize and why: Discovering the long tail via influence estimation.Advances in Neural Information Processing Sys- tems, 33:2881–2891, 2020

Vitaly Feldman and Chiyuan Zhang. What neural networks memorize and why: Discovering the long tail via influence estimation.Advances in Neural Information Processing Sys- tems, 33:2881–2891, 2020. 2

2020
[9]

Watt for what: Rethinking deep learn- ing’s energy-performance relationship.arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.06522, 2023

Shreyank N Gowda, Xinyue Hao, Gen Li, Shashank Narayana Gowda, Xiaobo Jin, and Laura Sevilla-Lara. Watt for what: Rethinking deep learn- ing’s energy-performance relationship.arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.06522, 2023. 1

work page arXiv 2023
[10]

Challenge point: a framework for conceptualizing the effects of various practice conditions in motor learning.Journal of motor behavior, 36 (2):212–224, 2004

Mark A Guadagnoli and Timothy D Lee. Challenge point: a framework for conceptualizing the effects of various practice conditions in motor learning.Journal of motor behavior, 36 (2):212–224, 2004. 1, 3

2004
[11]

Learn- ing both weights and connections for efficient neural net- work.Advances in neural information processing systems, 28, 2015

Song Han, Jeff Pool, John Tran, and William Dally. Learn- ing both weights and connections for efficient neural net- work.Advances in neural information processing systems, 28, 2015. 1, 2

2015
[12]

Deep residual learning for image recognition

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

2016
[13]

Masked autoencoders are scalable vision learners

Kaiming He, Xinlei Chen, Saining Xie, Yanghao Li, Piotr Doll´ar, and Ross Girshick. Masked autoencoders are scalable vision learners. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 16000– 16009, 2022. 5, 7

2022
[14]

Distilling the Knowledge in a Neural Network

Geoffrey Hinton, Oriol Vinyals, and Jeff Dean. Distill- ing the knowledge in a neural network.arXiv preprint arXiv:1503.02531, 2015. 1, 2

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015
[15]

MobileNets: Efficient Convolutional Neural Networks for Mobile Vision Applications

Andrew G Howard, Menglong Zhu, Bo Chen, Dmitry Kalenichenko, Weijun Wang, Tobias Weyand, Marco An- dreetto, and Hartwig Adam. Mobilenets: Efficient convolu- tional neural networks for mobile vision applications.arXiv preprint arXiv:1704.04861, 2017. 1, 2

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2017
[16]

Deep networks with stochastic depth

Gao Huang, Yu Sun, Zhuang Liu, Daniel Sedra, and Kilian Q Weinberger. Deep networks with stochastic depth. InCom- puter Vision–ECCV 2016: 14th European Conference, Am- sterdam, The Netherlands, October 11–14, 2016, Proceed- ings, Part IV 14, pages 646–661. Springer, 2016. 3

2016
[17]

Quantization and training of neural networks for efficient integer-arithmetic-only inference

Benoit Jacob, Skirmantas Kligys, Bo Chen, Menglong Zhu, Matthew Tang, Andrew Howard, Hartwig Adam, and Dmitry Kalenichenko. Quantization and training of neural networks for efficient integer-arithmetic-only inference. InProceed- ings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 2704–2713, 2018. 1, 2

2018
[18]

Not all sam- ples are created equal: Deep learning with importance sam- pling

Angelos Katharopoulos and Franc ¸ois Fleuret. Not all sam- ples are created equal: Deep learning with importance sam- pling. InInternational conference on machine learning, pages 2525–2534. PMLR, 2018. 1, 2

2018
[19]

Query- by-committee improvement with diversity and density in batch active learning.Information Sciences, 454:401–418,

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,
[20]

Understanding black-box predictions via influence functions

Pang Wei Koh and Percy Liang. Understanding black-box predictions via influence functions. InInternational confer- ence on machine learning, pages 1885–1894. PMLR, 2017. 2

2017
[21]

Learning multiple layers of features from tiny images

Alex Krizhevsky and Geoffrey Hinton. Learning multiple layers of features from tiny images. Technical report, Uni- versity of Toronto, 2009. 5

2009
[22]

Efficientformer: Vision transformers at mobilenet speed

Yanyu Li, Geng Yuan, Yang Wen, Ju Hu, Georgios Evan- gelidis, Sergey Tulyakov, Yanzhi Wang, and Jian Ren. Efficientformer: Vision transformers at mobilenet speed. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35: 12934–12949, 2022. 1, 2, 5

2022
[23]

Prioritized training on points that are learnable, worth learning, and not yet learnt

S ¨oren Mindermann, Jan M Brauner, Muhammed T Raz- zak, Mrinank Sharma, Andreas Kirsch, Winnie Xu, Benedikt H¨oltgen, Aidan N Gomez, Adrien Morisot, Sebastian Far- quhar, et al. Prioritized training on points that are learnable, worth learning, and not yet learnt. InInternational Con- ference on Machine Learning, pages 15630–15649. PMLR,
[24]

Coresets for data-efficient training of machine learning mod- els

Baharan Mirzasoleiman, Jeff Bilmes, and Jure Leskovec. Coresets for data-efficient training of machine learning mod- els. InInternational Conference on Machine Learning, pages 6950–6960. PMLR, 2020. 2

2020
[25]

How to measure uncertainty in uncertainty sampling for active learning.Machine Learning, 111(1):89– 122, 2022

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

2022
[26]

Deep learning on a data diet: Finding important ex- amples early in training.Advances in neural information processing systems, 34:20596–20607, 2021

Mansheej Paul, Surya Ganguli, and Gintare Karolina Dziu- gaite. Deep learning on a data diet: Finding important ex- amples early in training.Advances in neural information processing systems, 34:20596–20607, 2021. 6

2021
[27]

Infobatch: Lossless training speed up by unbiased dynamic data pruning

Ziheng Qin, Kai Wang, Zangwei Zheng, Jianyang Gu, Xi- angyu Peng, Daquan Zhou, Lei Shang, Baigui Sun, Xuan- song Xie, Yang You, et al. Infobatch: Lossless training speed up by unbiased dynamic data pruning. InThe Twelfth Inter- national Conference on Learning Representations. 6
[28]

Mobilenetv2: Inverted residuals and linear bottlenecks

Mark Sandler, Andrew Howard, Menglong Zhu, Andrey Zh- moginov, and Liang-Chieh Chen. Mobilenetv2: Inverted residuals and linear bottlenecks. InProceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recogni- tion, pages 4510–4520, 2018. 1, 5

2018
[29]

Active learning literature survey

Burr Settles. Active learning literature survey. 2009. 2

2009
[30]

Pro- gressive data dropout: An embarrassingly simple approach to train faster

MS Shriram, Xinyue Hao, Shihao Hou, Yang Lu, Laura Sevilla-Lara, Anurag Arnab, and Shreyank N Gowda. Pro- gressive data dropout: An embarrassingly simple approach to train faster. InThe Thirty-ninth Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems. 1, 3, 4, 5
[31]

Training region-based object detectors with online hard ex- ample mining

Abhinav Shrivastava, Abhinav Gupta, and Ross Girshick. Training region-based object detectors with online hard ex- ample mining. InProceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 761–769,
[32]

Dropout: a simple way to prevent neural networks from overfitting.The journal of machine learning research, 15(1):1929–1958, 2014

Nitish Srivastava, Geoffrey Hinton, Alex Krizhevsky, Ilya Sutskever, and Ruslan Salakhutdinov. Dropout: a simple way to prevent neural networks from overfitting.The journal of machine learning research, 15(1):1929–1958, 2014. 2

1929
[33]

Efficientnet: Rethinking model scaling for convolutional neural networks

Mingxing Tan and Quoc Le. Efficientnet: Rethinking model scaling for convolutional neural networks. InInternational conference on machine learning, pages 6105–6114. PMLR,
[34]

An empirical study of example forgetting during deep neural network learning

Mariya Toneva, Alessandro Sordoni, Remi Tachet des Combes, Adam Trischler, Yoshua Bengio, and Geoffrey J Gordon. An empirical study of example forgetting during deep neural network learning. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations. 2
[35]

Regularization of neural networks using drop- connect

Li Wan, Matthew Zeiler, Sixin Zhang, Yann Le Cun, and Rob Fergus. Regularization of neural networks using drop- connect. InInternational conference on machine learning, pages 1058–1066. PMLR, 2013. 2

2013
[36]

Data dropout: Op- timizing training data for convolutional neural networks

Tianyang Wang, Jun Huan, and Bo Li. Data dropout: Op- timizing training data for convolutional neural networks. In 2018 IEEE 30th international conference on tools with arti- ficial intelligence (ICTAI), pages 39–46. IEEE, 2018. 3

2018
[37]

Pytorch image models.https : / / github

Ross Wightman. Pytorch image models.https : / / github . com / rwightman / pytorch - image - models, 2019. 7

2019
[38]

Dataset pruning: Reducing training data by examining generalization influence.arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.09329, 2022

Shuo Yang, Zeke Xie, Hanyu Peng, Min Xu, Mingming Sun, and Ping Li. Dataset pruning: Reducing training data by examining generalization influence.arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.09329, 2022. 2

work page arXiv 2022
[39]

Instance-dependent early stopping

Suqin Yuan, Runqi Lin, Lei Feng, Bo Han, and Tongliang Liu. Instance-dependent early stopping. InThe Thir- teenth International Conference on Learning Representa- tions, 2025. 6

2025
[40]

Dynamic training data dropout for robust deep face recognition.IEEE Transactions on Multimedia, 24:1186–1197, 2021

Yaoyao Zhong, Weihong Deng, Han Fang, Jiani Hu, Dongyue Zhao, Xian Li, and Dongchao Wen. Dynamic training data dropout for robust deep face recognition.IEEE Transactions on Multimedia, 24:1186–1197, 2021. 3

2021
[41]

Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview.Theory into practice, 41(2):64–70, 2002

Barry J Zimmerman. Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview.Theory into practice, 41(2):64–70, 2002. 1, 3

2002