Efficiently managing and utilizing large-scale medical imaging datasets with limited resources presents significant challenges. While coreset selection helps reduce computational costs, its effectiveness in medical data remains limited due to inherent complexity, such as large intra-class variation and high inter-class similarity. To address this, we revisit the training process and observe that neural networks consistently produce stable confidence predictions and better remember samples near class centers in training. However, concentrating on these samples may complicate the modeling of decision boundaries. Hence, we argue that the more unreliable samples are, in fact, the more informative in helping build the decision boundary. Based on this, we propose the Dynamic Unreliability-Driven Coreset Selection(DUCS) strategy. Specifically, we introduce an inward-backward unreliability assessment perspective: 1) Inward Self-Awareness: The model introspects its behavior by analyzing the evolution of confidence during training, thereby quantifying uncertainty of each sample. 2) Backward Memory Tracking: The model reflects on its training tracking by tracking the frequency of forgetting samples, thus evaluating its retention ability for each sample. Next, we select unreliable samples that exhibit substantial confidence fluctuations and are repeatedly forgotten during training. This selection process ensures that the chosen samples are near the decision boundary, thereby aiding the model in refining the boundary. Extensive experiments on public medical datasets demonstrate our superior performance compared to state-of-the-art(SOTA) methods, particularly at high compression rates.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Examples of intra-class variation and inter-class similarity in medical image classification.
Figure 2: The framework of our proposed DUCS . DUCS is built upon a novel inward-backward unreliability assessment perspective. (1) To look inward at the model’s self-awareness , we parameterize the final layer outputs as concentration parameters of a Dirichlet distribution to quantify the epistemic uncertainty. This allows us to compute an epistemic uncertainty score Sti for each sample during training and subsequently calculate its variance Vti over a sliding window of epochs. (2) To look backward at the model’s memory tracking , we calculate the forgetting frequency Fti throughout the training history. Ultimately, the coreset is constructed by selecting samples that exhibit both high variance in epistemic uncertainty and high forgetting frequency.
Figure 3: t-SNE visualizations. “ \CIRCLE ” and “ ▲ ” denote top 20% unreliable and reliable samples.
OrganAMNIST
OrganSMNIST
β
0.5%
1%
2%
5%
10%
20%
30%
0.5%
1%
2%
5%
10%
20%
30%
Full dataset
98.39 ± 0.02
91.76 ± 0.55
Random
75.57
84.68
87.63
93.43
95.68
97.30
98.14
48.48
53.27
58.74
73.10
80.95
85.77
87.64
± 2.26
± 2.75
± 0.76
± 0.65
± 0.45
± 0.13
± 0.13
± 5.6
± 3.74
± 0.76
± 1.84
± 0.66
± 1.14
± 0.72
Forgetting [ 24 ]
10.32
14.38
15.58
38.53
75.85
97.22
98.11
4.35
4.12
4.33
22.33
33.15
64.43
81.28
± 0.53
± 0.63
± 0.47
± 2.78
± 1.69
± 0.38
± 0.04
± 0.02
± 0.21
± 0.22
± 0.31
± 0.60
± 1.23
± 2.31
Table 1: The Performance of ResNet-18 using various coreset selection methods on the MedMNIST medical datasets. All training runs were repeated three times with different random seeds to calculate the mean accuracy along with the standard deviation. The first and second results in each column are highlighted in red and blue, respectively.
Table 5
PneumoniaMNIST
β
10%
30%
50%
70%
Full dataset
97.27
Random
92.77
95.70
95.90
96.48
Forgetting [ 24 ]
55.86
96.48
95.70
95.52
Entropy [ 2 ]
71.48
96.09
95.70
97.07
EL2N [ 15 ]
26.17
94.34
97.07
95.90
Table 4: Performance on the small-size medical imaging dataset PneumoniaMNIST with ResNet-18.
ResNet-50
LeNet
MobileNet-v2
β
0.5%
1%
2%
5%
10%
20%
0.5%
1%
2%
5%
10%
20%
0.5%
1%
2%
5%
10%
20%
Forgetting [ 24 ]
4.49
4.24
4.05
4.64
35.79
59.42
7.67
7.67
3.87
4.59
24.76
33.59
4.24
4.24
4.08
4.10
28.66
53.47
Entropy [ 2 ]
20.39
22.02
24.22
26.71
48.29
76.90
16.27
20.71
21.83
21.58
47.56
65.92
20.68
22.50
23.54
24.80
54.15
73.00
EL2N [ 15 ]
7.32
6.40
13.70
15.33
56.64
67.24
79.98
11.91
15.74
14.60
46.92
61.08
18.56
16.97
15.99
20.56
57.99
52.34
AUM [ 16 ]
4.24
4.24
4.24
4.10
22.36
37.16
3.87
4.00
4.28
4.30
13.38
32.08
4.24
4.69
4.77
4.00
21.44
37.55
CCS [ 31 ]
31.97
47.68
44.86
43.90
71.88
78.27
40.01
39.80
51.75
52.15
69.48
71.44
47.39
51.92
58.03
45.65
77.98
81.40
Table 5: Cross-architecture generalization performance. We train ResNet-50, LeNet, and MobileNet-v2 models with coresets of OrganSMNIST selected by scores calculated on training dynamics with ResNet-18.
ResNet-50
LeNet
MobileNet-v2
β
0.5%
1%
2%
5%
10%
20%
0.5%
1%
2%
5%
10%
20%
0.5%
1%
2%
5%
10%
20%
Forgetting [ 24 ]
11.00
12.91
12.42
34.52
68.33
96.09
8.75
12.09
13.61
23.93
47.33
83.79
8.79
11.89
14.14
25.08
71.25
95.59
Entropy [ 2 ]
9.77
16.78
15.96
19.06
34.71
72.93
4.70
13.28
10.69
17.45
26.84
40.24
9.84
15.65
18.87
19.26
37.73
69.00
EL2N [ 15 ]
8.70
10.15
11.82
21.68
56.63
94.58
8.75
9.21
12.83
19.11
45.65
84.79
9.88
8.83
13.71
24.05
57.99
93.59
AUM [ 16 ]
13.25
9.97
11.86
30.60
34.96
86.52
9.81
8.75
9.51
20.60
32.72
61.93
9.43
11.52
12.51
20.18
33.15
89.91
CCS [ 31 ]
79.76
87.95
82.53
92.33
95.13
96.70
29.75
52.04
62.73
80.43
75.87
80.76
83.65
88.21
83.64
94.04
95.12
97.60
Table 6: Cross-architecture generalization performance. We train ResNet-50, LeNet, and MobileNet-v2 models with coresets of OrganAMNIST selected by scores calculated on training dynamics with ResNet-18.
β
5%
10%
20%
30%
Full
Organ3D
87.50
95.62
97.50
98.12
98.44
Nodule3D
78.12
81.88
76.88
83.75
82.81
Fracture3D
48.00
48.75
51.25
52.50
53.91
Table 7: Performance on 3D datasets across different selection ratios.
Figure 4: The score variations of two randomly selected samples from OrganSMNIST and OrganAMNIST during the training process. Different colors represent different samples.
Figure 5: We validate the effectiveness of evaluating sample importance from the two complementary perspectives on the OrganSMNIST and OrganAMNIST datasets.
OrganAMNIST
OrganSMNIST
β
0.5%
1%
2%
5%
10%
20%
30%
0.5%
1%
2%
5%
10%
20%
30%
K=5
87.47
93.10
93.27
96.47
97.97
98.29
98.43
59.26
72.38
75.08
83.03
86.70
89.07
89.91
K=10
87.38
90.99
93.27
96.50
97.66
98.44
98.68
58.28
72.45
77.17
84.47
86.71
89.45
89.90
K=20
85.25
85.87
89.99
95.18
96.89
98.09
98.66
47.68
61.95
70.96
80.46
85.03
88.78
89.97
K=40
79.25
83.65
90.03
94.22
95.86
97.66
98.68
50.16
64.36
69.37
80.75
83.61
88.46
89.66
Table 8: Ablation study on window size K on the OrganAMNIST and OrganSMNIST. The best results in each column are in red.
Table 13
Appendix figures & tables4 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure S1 : Ablation study of the inward-looking and backward-looking perspectives. (a) and (b) denote the performance on different datasets.
β
2%
5%
10%
Full Dataset
score computing time
selection time
EVA
123.03(3.36%)
203.76(5.56%)
323.92(8.85%)
3660.53
17.00
1.00
DUCS
23.09
1.00
Appendix
Table S1: Compute time comparison on PathMNIST.
PathMNIST
COVID-LDCT
β
2%
5%
10%
20%
30%
2%
5%
10%
20%
30%
Full dataset
99.38
98.97
EVA
75.19
77.90
82.76
87.53
91.10
54.63
60.32
61.82
71.83
96.57
Moderate-DS
52.81
67.62
74.12
84.79
88.22
66.48
67.85
69.77
77.52
80.47
TDDS
73.40
77.59
82.51
90.19
90.60
59.79
59.63
69.29
89.10
92.05
DUCS (Ours)
82.91
90.02
93.49
96.70
98.46
70.12
75.46
81.91
93.63
95.13
Appendix
Table S2 : Performance comparison on PathMNIST and COVID-LDCT datasets. The best and second-best results are marked in red and blue , respectively.
PathMNIST
COVID-LDCT
β
2%
5%
10%
20%
30%
2%
5%
10%
20%
30%
Moderate-DS
54.18
56.36
64.50
68.95
75.92
59.15
60.58
62.98
64.70
68.54
TDDS
54.87
75.88
81.18
84.93
84.30
50.51
51.54
52.64
50.45
53.80
EVA
75.85
77.19
83.38
87.60
91.14
52.16
56.61
60.45
63.95
67.51
DUCS (Ours)
80.06
83.98
90.02
91.52
91.52
57.92
61.82
61.82
69.43
69.98
Appendix
Table S3 : Cross-architecture validation on PathMNIST and COVID-LDCT datasets: ResNet-18 → ViT-B/16.
The rapid growth of image data has produced large-scale datasets, raising concerns about the time and memory costs of model training. Selecting representative training subsets, however, remains challenging: individual sample contributions are unclear, and model behavior varies across datasets and runs. We address these challenges with a framework that combines coreset selection with an ensemble aggregation over multiple runs. For coreset selection, we propose SCOre-Stratified Selection (SCOSS), which partitions the training data into intervals based on a chosen score and samples from each interval. The ensemble combines predictions from multiple runs, each performed on an independently sampled training subset. As baselines, we use moderate and random selection, each in original and class-balanced versions. We assess the framework with Simple Graph Convolution (SGC) and Support Vector Machine (SVM) classifiers under different sampling ratios. Experiments show that SCOSS is competitive with baselines, often the best choice for SGC, and enables favorable trade-offs between accuracy and efficiency. On the fine-grained dataset, SGC with SCOSS outperforms SVMs when using fewer labeled samples. The code and supplementary materials are publicly available at http://scoss.lucasvalem.com.
Pedro Rocha Dantas, Lucas Pascotti Valem
Institute of Mathematics and Computer Science (ICMC) University of S˜ao Paulo (USP) S˜ao Carlos – SP – Brazil
Medical image segmentation supports clinical workflows by precisely delineating anatomical structures and lesions. However, medical image datasets medical image datasets suffer from acquisition noise and annotation ambiguity, causing pervasive data uncertainty that substantially undermines model robustness. Existing research focuses primarily on model architectural improvements and predictive reliability estimation, while systematic exploration of the intrinsic data uncertainty remains insufficient. To address this gap, this work proposes leveraging the universal representation capabilities of visual foundation models to estimate inherent data uncertainty. Specifically, we analyze the feature diversity of the model's decoded representations and quantify their singular value energy to define the semantic perception scale for each class, thereby measuring sample difficulty and aleatoric uncertainty. Based on this foundation, we design two uncertainty-driven application strategies: (1) the aleatoric uncertainty-aware data filtering mechanism to eliminate potentially noisy samples and enhance model learning quality; (2) the dynamic uncertainty-aware optimization strategy that adaptively adjusts class-specific loss weights during training based on the semantic perception scale, combined with a label denoising mechanism to improve training stability. Experimental results on five public datasets encompassing CT and MRI modalities and involving multi-organ and tumor segmentation tasks demonstrate that our method achieves significant and robust performance improvements across various mainstream network architectures, revealing the broad application potential of aleatoric uncertainty in medical image understanding and segmentation tasks.
Ruiyang Li, Fang Liu, Licheng Jiao +8
Key Laboratory of Intelligent Perception and Image Understanding of Ministry of Education, International Research Center for Intelligent Perception and Computation, Joint International Research Laboratory of Intelligent Perception and Computation, School of Artificial Intelligence, Xidian University, Xi’an 710071, China
Medical imaging datasets are often characterized by extreme class imbalances, where rare pathologies are significantly underrepresented compared to common conditions. This imbalance poses a dual challenge for Open-Set Recognition (OSR): models must maintain high classification accuracy on known classes while reliably rejecting unknown samples unseen during training in the clinical settings. While recently proposed Deep Simplex Classifier (DSC)\cite{cevikalp2024reaching} and UnCertainty-aware Deep Simplex Classifier (UCDSC)\cite{Aditya_2026_WACV} successfully leverage Neural Collapse to ensure maximal inter-class separation, they rely on a uniform margin that does not account for the varying densities of medical classes. In this paper, we propose DMDSC an enhanced framework featuring a dynamic margin approach. Our approach automatically adapts class-specific margins based on label frequency, enforcing a higher penalty and tighter feature clustering for rare pathologies to counteract the effects of data imbalance. Extensive experiments conducted on diverse medical benchmarks on BloodMNIST\cite{medmnistv2}, OCTMNIST\cite{medmnistv2}, DermaMNIST\cite{medmnistv2}, and BreaKHis~\cite{spanhol2015dataset} datasets, demonstrate that our framework outperforms state-of-the-art methods.
Vishal, Arnav Aditya, Nitin Kumar +1
Shiv Nadar Institution of Eminence, Delhi NCR, India