Real-world fine-grained visual retrieval often requires discovering a rare concept from large unlabeled collections with minimal supervision. This is especially critical in biodiversity monitoring, ecological studies, and long-tailed visual domains, where the target may represent only a tiny fraction of the data, creating highly imbalanced binary problems. Interactive retrieval with relevance feedback offers a practical solution: starting from a small query, the system selects candidates for binary user annotation and iteratively refines a lightweight classifier. While Active Learning (AL) is commonly used to guide selection, conventional AL assumes symmetric class priors and large annotation budgets, limiting effectiveness in imbalanced, low-budget, low-latency settings. We introduce Positive-First Most Ambiguous (PF-MA), a simple yet effective AL criterion that explicitly addresses the class imbalance asymmetry: it prioritizes near-boundary samples while favoring likely positives, enabling rapid discovery of subtle visual categories while maintaining informativeness. Unlike standard methods that oversample negatives, PF-MA consistently returns small batches with a high proportion of relevant samples, improving early retrieval and user satisfaction. To capture retrieval diversity, we also propose a class coverage metric that measures how well selected positives span the visual variability of the target class. Experiments on long-tailed datasets, including fine-grained botanical data, demonstrate that PF-MA consistently outperforms strong baselines in both coverage and classifier performance, across varying class sizes and descriptors. Our results highlight that aligning AL with the asymmetric and user-centric objectives of interactive fine-grained retrieval enables simple yet powerful solutions for retrieving rare and visually subtle categories in realistic human-in-the-loop settings.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Comparison of selected samples. MA (left): near-boundary negatives are oversampled. MP (middle): only positives far from the boundary are selected. PF-MA (right): balance between relevant positives and negatives around the boundary.
Figure 2: Interactive retrieval process.
dataset
min
max
mean
median
Cifar100-LT
0.079%
3.97%
1%
0.56%
ImageNet-LT
0.004%
1.1%
0.1%
0.06%
PlantNet300K
0.001%
2.96%
0.09%
0.01%
Table 1: Statistics of class frequencies per dataset.
metric
Rand
DAL
CoreSet
MA
cov25
0.111
0.096
0.087
0.899
f125
0.381
0.321
0.164
0.857
pos25
0.036
0.032
0.035
0.61
Table 2: Performance comparison of representativeness-based AL methods vs. uncertainty-based selection on CIFAR100-LT at iteration 25 .
method
Cifar100-LT
ImageNet-LT
PlantNet300K
CLIP
DINOv2
CLIP
DINOv2
CLIP
DINOv2
MA
0.89
0.899
0.852
0.804
0.596
0.678
MP
0.875
0.877
0.821
0.776
0.565
0.628
ALAMP
0.811
0.892
0.744
0.771
0.406
0.605
MA-S
0.88
0.895
0.844
0.802
0.583
0.671
MA-D
0.903
0.84
0.842
0.751
0.595
0.679
Table 3: Class coverage scores cov25 at iteration 25 for different AL methods, datasets and descriptors.
Figure 3: Retrieval results for a bird species at iteration 5 ( 50 total annotations). The initial query image is in blue, the positive images in green and the negative ones in red. Top: MA . Middle: MP . Bottom: PF-MA
method
K
16
32
64
MA
0.848
0.804
0.738
MP
0.776
0.776
0.764
ALAMP
0.808
0.771
0.712
MA-S
0.848
0.802
0.731
MA-D
0.833
0.751
0.648
Table 4: Class coverage scores cov25 at iteration 25 for different K values. Second best is underlined.
Figure 4: Class coverage results per iteration.
Figure 5: Class coverage results at iteration 15 per range of class size.
Figure 6: Distribution of positive ratio among selected samples for different selection strategies.
metric
Rand
DAL
CoreSet
MA
cov5
0.05
0.039
0.039
0.504
f15
0.182
0.102
0.07
0.828
pos5
0.022
0.019
0.02
0.3
cov15
0.081
0.066
0.058
0.839
f115
0.294
0.215
0.099
0.857
pos15
0.029
0.024
0.026
0.537
Table 5: Performance comparison of representativeness-based AL methods vs. uncertainty-based selection on CIFAR100-LT at iterations 5 , 15 and 25 .
metric
method
K
16
32
64
cov5
MA
0.55
0.423
0.327
MP
0.413
0.396
0.399
ALAMP
0.49
0.387
0.315
MA-S
0.51
0.377
0.28
MA-D
0.513
0.355
0.246
Table 6: Class coverage scores at iterations 5 , 15 and 25 for different K values. Second best is underlined.
metric
method
Cifar100-LT
ImageNet-LT
PlantNet300K
CLIP
DINOv2
CLIP
DINOv2
CLIP
DINOv2
cov5
MA
0.402
0.502
0.351
0.423
0.203
0.282
MP
0.41
0.454
0.368
0.396
0.212
0.29
ALAMP
0.349
0.471
0.289
0.387
0.148
0.235
MA-S
0.363
0.442
0.321
0.377
0.188
0.257
MA-D
0.388
0.407
0.327
0.355
0.193
0.284
Table 7: Class coverage scores at iterations 5 , 15 and 25 for different AL methods, datasets and descriptors. Second best is underlined.
metric
method
Cifar100-LT
ImageNet-LT
PlantNet300K
CLIP
DINOv2
CLIP
DINOv2
CLIP
DINOv2
f15
MA
0.604
0.83
0.504
0.675
0.191
0.413
MP
0.258
0.597
0.187
0.573
0.077
0.221
ALAMP
0.56
0.806
0.45
0.646
0.147
0.373
MA-S
0.57
0.816
0.476
0.667
0.176
0.398
MA-D
0.517
0.803
0.437
0.661
0.159
0.398
Table 8: F1 scores at iterations 5 , 15 and 25 for different AL methods, datasets and descriptors. Top-3 results are underlined. A star (*) is used only when our method achieves the top-1 result.
Figure 7: Class coverage results per iteration.
Figure 8: Class coverage results at iteration 15 per range of class size.
Figure 9: F1 score results per iteration.
Figure 10: F1 score results at iteration 15 per range of class size.