Papers › Effective Version Space Reduction for Convolutional Neural Networks

Effective Version Space Reduction for Convolutional Neural Networks

22 Jun 2020arXiv:2006.12456archive 2025-07-28

Jiayu Liu, Ioannis Chiotellis, Rudolph Triebel, Daniel Cremers

In active learning, sampling bias could pose a serious inconsistency problem and hinder the algorithm from finding the optimal hypothesis. However, many methods for neural networks are hypothesis space agnostic and do not address this problem. We examine active learning with convolutional neural networks through the principled lens of version space reduction. We identify the connection between two approaches---prior mass reduction and diameter reduction---and propose a new diameter-based querying method---the minimum Gibbs-vote disagreement. By estimating version space diameter and bias, we illustrate how version space of neural networks evolves and examine the realizability assumption. With experiments on MNIST, Fashion-MNIST, SVHN and STL-10 datasets, we demonstrate that diameter reduction methods reduce the version space more effectively and perform better than prior mass reduction and other baselines, and that the Gibbs vote disagreement is on par with the best query method.

PaperPDF

Code

No code repository is listed for this paper in the archive or in Syntology's graph.

Code Syntology ran Syntology

Not run by Syntology. Nothing on this page verifies that the listed code works.

Tasks

Active LearningImage Classification

Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28

TaskDatasetModelMetricValueRank at snapshotLeaderboardReport
Image Classification STL-10 PWD Percentage correct 59.45 #107 of 117 Archive leaderboard report
Image Classification STL-10 GVD Percentage correct 59.33 #108 of 117 Archive leaderboard report
Image Classification STL-10 VR Percentage correct 59.13 #109 of 117 Archive leaderboard report
Image Classification STL-10 Core SET Percentage correct 58.93 #110 of 117 Archive leaderboard report
Image Classification STL-10 GE Percentage correct 58.84 #111 of 117 Archive leaderboard report
Image Classification STL-10 DFAL Percentage correct 58.81 #112 of 117 Archive leaderboard report
Image Classification STL-10 Random Percentage correct 58.15 #113 of 117 Archive leaderboard report
Image Classification STL-10 BALD-MCD Percentage correct 57.35 #114 of 117 Archive leaderboard report
Image Classification STL-10 M2-PWD Percentage correct 57.31 #116 of 117 Archive leaderboard report

Ranks are positions in the archive's leaderboards as they stood at the 2025-07-28 snapshot. Results published since then are not among these rows, so a rank here is not a current standing.

Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections