Authors: Jesper B. Christensen, Ciaran Bench, Spencer A. Thomas, Hüsnü Aslan, David Balslev-Harder, Nadia A. S. Smith, Alessandra Manzin
Organizations: Danish Fundamental Metrology (DFM), Kogle Allé 5, DK-2970 Hørsholm, Denmark · National Physical Laboratory (NPL), Teddington, United Kingdom · TÜV SÜD, Warrington, United Kingdom · Royal Surrey NHS Foundation Trust, Guildford, United Kingdom · Istituto Nazionale di Ricerca Metrologica (INRiM), Strada delle Cacce, 91, 10135 Torino, Italy
We introduce ControlAugment (Ctrl-A), an automated data augmentation algorithm for image-vision tasks, which incorporates principles from control theory for online adjustment of augmentation strength distributions during model training. Ctrl-A eliminates the need for initialization of individual augmentation strengths. Instead, augmentation strength distributions are dynamically, and individually, adapted during training based on a control-loop architecture and what we define as relative operation response curves. Using an operation-dependent update procedure provides Ctrl-A with the potential to suppress augmentation styles that negatively impact model performance, alleviating the need for manually engineering augmentation policies for new image-vision tasks. Experiments on the CIFAR-10, CIFAR-100, and SVHN-core benchmark datasets using the common WideResNet-28-10 architecture demonstrate that Ctrl-A is highly competitive with existing state-of-the-art data augmentation strategies.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Illustration of the ControlAugment framework. Model training proceeds in phases of np epochs, separated by the ControlAugment algorithm, which regulates the informed augmentation pool by adjusting the augmentation strength parameters Γ and α for the subsequent training phase. The adjustment is executed by the ControlAugment block which quantifies the response of each operation using augmented validation data and through an internal control parameter ( ξ ) which is updated by comparing the setpoint value ( κsp ) with a relative training/validation performance metric ( κ ).
Figure 2: Examples of augmentation strength distributions with increasing distribution means from left to right.
Figure 3: Illustration of the Ctrl-A update procedure (Eqs. 3 and 4 ), which relies on relative operation response curves to determine new values for the ASD parameters Γ and α based on the value of the control parameter, ξ . Implicitly, Γ3=1 and α1=α2=0 .
Figure 4: CIFAR-10 test accuracy (model: airbench-94) as a function of the control setpoint κsp for (a) CtrlA( 1 ), (b) CtrlA( 2 ), and (c) CtrlA( 3 ). Search-optimized RA is represented by the shaded region ( 95% confidence interval).
Standard setups
Modified setups
Base
AA
RA s
DeepAA s
TA w
CtrlA c (2)
TA w
CtrlA c (1)
CtrlA c (2)
CtrlA c (3)
CIFAR-10
96.1
97.4
97.3
97.56(14)
97.46(06)
97.54(08)
97.96(08)
98.14(11)
98.19(06)
98.10(05)
CIFAR-100
81.2
82.9
83.3
84.02(18)
84.33(17)
84.29(17)
84.43(24)
84.02(24)
84.80(13)
84.44(29)
SVHN-c
96.9
98.1
98.3
-
98.11(03)
98.06(07)
98.14(07)
98.18(03)
98.25(03)
98.27(03)
Table 1: Top-1 accuracy (model: WRN-28-10) on CIFAR-10, CIFAR-100, and SVHN-core. The first five columns are literature values [ 38 , 20 , 28 , 24 , 21 ] , and the last five columns are from this work. Parenthesis represent shorthand notation for 95 % uncertainty coverage, i.e. 97.54(08) is 97.54±0.08 . Lowercase font represents the used DA pool, s: Standard pool [ 28 ] , w: Wide pool [ 21 ] , and c: Control pool from this work (Appendix A). Dash indicates no available result.
Dataset
Validation
Test
Test TTA
CIFAR-10
98.06(23)
98.20(12)
98.35(11)
CIFAR-100
84.60(40)
84.68(15)
85.15(26)
SVHN-c
97.74(59)
98.27(06)
98.27(06)
Table 2: Top-1 accuracy ( % ) (model: WRN-28-10) on CIFAR-10, CIFAR-100, and SVHN-core using CtrlA(2) with κsp=1.5 . The validation dataset, containing 1000 image-label pairs, is a subset of the test dataset, i.e. DVal⊂DTest . Notation xx.xx(yy) is shorthand for xx.xx ± 0.yy, representing a 95 % uncertainty coverage.
Dataset
Validation
Test
Test TTA
CIFAR-10
98.14(36)
98.11(14)
98.25(11)
CIFAR-100
86.10(95)
84.57(36)
85.03(32)
SVHN-c
96.52(18)
98.28(07)
98.31(07)
Table 3: Top-1 accuracy ( % ) (model: WRN-28-10) on CIFAR-10, CIFAR-100, and SVHN-core using CtrlA(2) with κsp=1.5 . The validation dataset, containing 1,000 image-label pairs, is obtained from a random training-validation split, i.e. DVal⊂DTrain(full),DTrain=DTrain(full)∖DVal . Notation xx.xx(yy) is shorthand for xx.xx ± 0.yy, representing a 95 % uncertainty coverage.
Figure 5: Convergence results for CIFAR-10 performance.
Aug. pool
TA
CtrlA(2)
Standard [ 28 ]
97.60(11)
97.76(09)
Wide [ 21 ]
97.96(08)
97.93(10)
Ours (App. A)
98.03(06)
98.19(06)
Table 4: Top-1 test accuracy ( % ) (model: WRN-28-10) on CIFAR-10 for different augmentation pools. Notation xx.xx(yy) is shorthand for xx.xx ± 0.yy, representing a 95 % uncertainty coverage.
Appendix figures & tables4 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Op. #
Op. Name
Parametrization
TranslateX (s)
γ1/2× Img. width
TranslateY (s)
γ2/2× Img. height
ShearX (s)
45∘γ3
ShearY (s)
45∘γ4
Scale (s)
1+γ5/2
Rotation (s)
60∘γ6
Appendix
Table 5: List of the “control” augmentation pool and respective parametrizations that use normalized augmentation strength γi∈[0,1] . All operations converge to the identity operator for γ→0 , and the identity operator is therefore explicitly excluded from the augmentation pool. Operations appended by (s) indicates that the sign of γi is flipped, i.e. γi<0 , with a 50% probability.
Figure 6: Visualization of uni-transformed images for each of the operations in the full augmentation pool with augmentation strength γ=+1 . The original image is shown in the lower right.
Figure 7: Examples of relative operation response data (crosses) and fitting curves (dashed lines) used to determine Γi and αi . CIFAR-10 was used as example dataset.
Figure 8: Comparison study exploiting an 8000/2000 validation-test split to investigate whether the Ctrl-A algorithm leads to overfitting to the validation data used to update augmentation strengths. The results are obtained by training a (custom) LeNet model on CIFAR-10 employing CtrlA(2) augmentation.
Data augmentation is a cornerstone of deep learning pipelines, yet existing strategies treat it as a static, model-agnostic preprocessing step, either relying on expensive dataset-specific policy search or applying transformations uniformly at random, regardless of what the model has already learned. We introduce ActiveAugment, a unified framework that treats augmentation selection as an online active learning problem. For each training minibatch, ActiveAugment generates a pool of candidate augmented views and scores each candidate using a combination of the model's predictive uncertainty and the feature discrepancy induced by the augmentation. The augmentation under which the current model is most fragile is selected per sample, and the model is then trained with a joint supervised classification and supervised contrastive objective that enforces intra-class invariance to the selected augmentations while maintaining inter-class separation. We evaluate ActiveAugment on eight benchmark datasets spanning natural and medical imaging, using CNN and transformer architectures across three training regimes (training from scratch, full fine-tuning, and linear probing), and comparing eight active selection strategies for augmentation scoring. ActiveAugment outperforms AutoAugment, RandAugment, and TrivialAugment under controlled augmentation shifts across all domains and budgets, with the most pronounced gains at low labelling budgets. On medical imaging datasets, where data is scarce and domain shift relative to natural-image pretrained models is large, ActiveAugment achieves higher test F1 than all baselines, demonstrating strong cross-domain adaptability. Our analysis reveals that the augmentation selection policy evolves meaningfully during training and that strategy choice has a direct impact on generalisation. Code is available at: https://github.com/noahvide/ActiveAugment.
In image and video technologies, data augmentation is widely used to improve the generalization of deep visual models, and mixup-based strategies that interpolate between samples have become the dominant approach. However, computing informative mixing regions adds substantial overhead, and blending content across different images frequently disrupts the semantic integrity of the resulting sample. We propose \our{}, a data augmentation method that constructs challenging yet label-consistent training samples entirely within a single visual sample. \our{} first extracts multi-scale salient patches from the sample using a lightweight saliency detector, refines each patch with an instruction-guided generative model, and blends the edited patch back into the non-salient regions of the same sample; because the generative edits are computed once and cached offline, this step adds negligible training cost. To further diversify the learned representation, \our{} injects self-similar fractal structure into the same salient regions at an adaptive ratio, so each training sample carries both fractal and non-fractal structure. We derive a second-order approximation of the resulting vicinal risk, showing that the method simultaneously enforces invariance to the generative edit and suppresses curvature along the perturbed salient directions, and we verify both predictions empirically. We evaluate on small to large backbones for instance Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs), Vision Transformers (ViTs) and Vision-Language Foundational Models (VLMs) across seven benchmarks covering coarse- and fine-grained classification, robustness to corruption and occlusion, calibration, and transfer and self-supervised learning, InstructMixup outperforms nine competing augmentation methods, surpassing the strongest baseline across all benchmarks.
Khawar Islam, Arif Mahmood, Xin Jin +1
The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia · The Information Technology University, Lahore, Pakistan · Westlake University, China
Vision-language-action (VLA) models currently demonstrate strong performance in a wide range of real-world robotics tasks. However, they often still lack the generalization ability to handle large visual out-of-distribution shifts. Post-training of VLAs with reinforcement learning (RL) has been shown to benefit robustness, but significant room for improvement remains. In this work, we systematically study the effect of image augmentation on VLA post-training. We find that it is crucial to augment only the critic module during RL updates, while leaving the actor's input clean during both rollouts and updates. For π0.5 and GR00T N1.5 this raises out-of-distribution success on LIBERO-Plus by 7.8 and 10.0 points respectively, while augmenting the actor collapses training entirely. We investigate a range of augmentation types and strengths, and provide practical recommendations for improving generalization in VLA post-training.