Existing dynamic data pruning methods often fail under noisy-label settings, as they typically rely on per-sample loss as the ranking criterion. This could mistakenly lead to preserving noisy samples due to their high loss values, resulting in significant performance drop. To address this, we propose AlignPrune, a noise-robust module designed to enhance the reliability of dynamic pruning under label noise. Specifically, AlignPrune introduces the Dynamic Alignment Score (DAS), which is a loss-trajectory-based criterion that enables more accurate identification of noisy samples, thereby improving pruning effectiveness. As a simple yet effective plug-and-play module, AlignPrune can be seamlessly integrated into state-of-the-art dynamic pruning frameworks, consistently outperforming them without modifying either the model architecture or the training pipeline. Extensive experiments on five widely-used benchmarks across various noise types and pruning ratios demonstrate the effectiveness of AlignPrune, boosting accuracy by up to 6.3% over state-of-the-art baselines. Our results offer a generalizable solution for pruning under noisy data, encouraging further exploration of learning in real-world scenarios. Code is available at: https://github.com/leonqin430/AlignPrune.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Illustrations of: (a) Our Motivation: Performance comparison of static vs . dynamic pruning methods under label noise. ( upper ) Dynamic pruning is inherently more robust to noise than static pruning. Random dynamic pruning consistently outperforms random static pruning across all noise types. ( bottom ) This motivates our work to further improve dynamic methods, where our AlignPrune achieves a new state-of-the-art, consistently outperforming dynamic (InfoBatch [ 42 ] ) and static-robust (Prune4ReL [ 38 ] , labeled as ‘Static SOTA’) baselines. (b) Our Observation: Failure of loss-based pruning methods. Existing methods use a loss threshold (dashed line) that is unreliable, which could mistakenly prune many low-loss clean samples while retain high-loss noisy ones. As pruning progresses, the accumulation of noisy examples in the training loop degrades the overall model performance. (c) Our Insight: Divergent Loss Trajectories of Clean vs . Noisy Samples. We find that clean samples typically follow a smooth, monotonic decrease in loss, while noisy samples exhibit non-monotonic loss patterns, highlighting the potential of trajectory-based reference signals in separating clean from noisy data.
Figure 2: Illustration of the proposed plug-and-play AlignPrune module. Existing dynamic pruning methods [ 42 , 67 ] rank samples based on their loss values, which could mistakenly result in a final subset S(t) retained with noisy samples. Our method replaces the ranking score with DAS, where noisy samples tend to have low scores to be correctly pruned, resulting in a robust subset S(t) composed primarily of clean samples. Best viewed in color.
Noisy Type →
Clean
Real
Symmetric
Asymmetric
Mean
Pruning Method ↓
0.2
0.5
0.8
0.2
0.4
Δ
Full-training
78.2
56.1
71.4
58.6
39.8
72.4
63.3
–
Prune Ratio ∼ 30%
Static Random
73.8 − 4.4
53.3 − 2.8
67.9 − 3.4
51.1 − 7.5
30.3 − 9.5
68.4 − 4.0
57.8 − 5.5
-5.3
Dynamic Random [ 36 ]
77.3 − 0.9
54.7 − 1.4
69.9 − 1.4
58.8 + 0.2
40.1 + 0.3
71.5 − 0.9
63.2 − 0.1
-0.6
InfoBatch [ 42 ]
79.0 + 0.8
56.1 + 0.0
71.4 + 0.0
59.7 + 1.1
41.8 + 2.0
71.9 − 0.5
64.2 + 0.9
+0.6
Table 1: Classification results on CIFAR-100N with ResNet-18. Performance gaps relative to the full-training setting are indicated as superscripts. The mean Δ is computed across all noise types.
Noisy Type →
Clean
Real
Symmetric
Asymmetric
Mean
Pruning Method ↓
Real-A
Real-W
0.2
0.5
0.8
0.2
0.4
Δ
Full-training
95.6
90.7
78.3
91.3
85.4
65.6
90.6
85.8
–
Prune Ratio ∼ 30%
Static Random
94.6 − 1.0
89.9 − 0.7
75.0 − 3.3
89.0 − 2.3
81.2 − 4.2
57.6 − 8.0
87.9 − 2.8
82.5 − 3.3
-3.2
Dynamic Random [ 36 ]
94.8 − 0.8
90.3 − 0.3
77.3 − 1.0
90.8 − 0.5
84.2 − 1.2
64.8 − 0.8
91.5 + 0.9
84.5 − 1.3
-0.6
InfoBatch [ 42 ]
95.3 − 0.3
91.0 + 0.3
78.1 − 0.3
92.0 + 0.7
85.6 + 0.1
67.5 + 1.9
91.3 + 0.7
87.0 + 1.3
+0.5
Table 2: Classification results on CIFAR-10N with ResNet-18. Performance gaps relative to the full-training setting are indicated as superscripts. The mean Δ is computed across all noise types.
Figure 3: Data pruning performance comparison: (a) WebVision; (b) Clothing-1M. Best viewed in color.
Model Architecture →
ConvNeXt [ 31 ]
DeiT [ 53 ]
Swin [ 30 ]
Mean
Pruning Method ↓
Tiny
Base
Small
Base
Tiny
Base
Δ
Clean
Full-training
73.3
75.6
71.9
77.8
73.5
76.9
–
InfoBatch
73.2 − 0.1
75.4 − 0.2
71.5 − 0.4
77.8 + 0.0
73.6 + 0.1
77.1 + 0.2
-0.1
InfoBatch + Ours
73.4 + 0.1
75.7 + 0.1
72.1 + 0.2
77.8 + 0.0
73.6 + 0.1
77.2 + 0.3
+0.1
Noisy
Full-training
66.4
67.3
64.7
68.9
65.0
67.8
–
InfoBatch
65.8 − 0.6
66.8 − 0.5
64.1 − 0.6
68.1 − 0.8
64.3 − 0.7
66.9 − 0.9
-0.7
Table 3: Classification results on ImageNet-1K across modern CNN and ViT architectures. Performance gaps relative to the full-training setting are indicated as superscripts.
Figure 4: Ablation on hyper-parameter selection on CIFAR-100N. Best viewed in color.
Static
Dynamic
SeTa
InfoBatch
Ours
Full Data
Acc (%) ↑
51.8
54.1
55.7
56.0
60.7
56.1
Time (mins) ↓
24.7
24.4
25.8
23.9
22.5
46.7
Table 4: Efficiency comparison on CIFAR-100N. Results are reported with ResNet-18 under 50% prune ratio with Real noise for 200 epochs on two RTX-A6000-GPUs. “Ours” refers to AlignPrune with InfoBatch.
Reference-set Fraction →
100%
10%
1%
Reference-set Type ↓
Clean
Real
Clean
Real
Clean
Real
Noisy Train-set
78.9
53.7
79.0
54.1
79.0
53.8
Clean Validation-set
79.0
56.8
78.9
56.3
79.1
56.0
Pseudo Clean-set (estimated by [ 19 ] )
79.1
56.0
79.1
56.8
79.0
56.4
Pseudo Clean-set (estimated by [ 56 ] )
78.6
56.5
79.2
56.4
78.7
55.9
Table 5: Ablation on AlignPrune with estimated pseudo clean set. We evaluate AlignPrune using pseudo clean subsets selected by SmallL [ 19 ] and Moderate [ 56 ] as reference sets. A random subset from noisy training set is also included for comparison.
Figure 5: Ablation on AlignPrune with varying reference set sizes. Reference set size is reduced from 100% to 0.1% of the original one. AlignPrune remains effective even with minimal clean supervision. Best viewed in color.
Appendix figures & tables14 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Hyper-parameters
CIFAR-100N
CIFAR-10N
WebVision
Clothing-1M
Training Setup
architecture
ResNet-18
ResNet-18
InceptionResNetV2
ResNet-50 (Pre-trained)
training epoch
200
200
100
10
batch size
128
128
32
32
optimizer
LARS
LARS
SGD
SGD
learning rate
5.2
5.62
0.02
0.002
lr scheduler
OneCycle
OneCycle
MultiStep-50th
MultiStep-5th
Appendix
Table A : Summary of the experimental setups and hyper-parameters on CIFAR-100N, CIFAR-10N, WebVision and Clothing-1M datasets.
Noisy Type →
Clean
Real
Symmetric
Asymmetric
Mean
Pruning Method ↓
0.2
0.5
0.8
0.2
0.4
Δ
Full-training
78.2
56.1
71.4
58.6
39.8
72.4
63.3
–
Prune Ratio ∼ 30%
Static Random
73.8 − 4.4
53.3 − 2.8
67.9 − 3.4
51.1 − 7.5
30.3 − 9.5
68.4 − 4.0
57.8 − 5.5
-5.3
SmallL [ 19 ]
71.3 − 6.9
58.0 + 1.9
69.2 − 2.2
51.9 − 6.7
13.7 − 26.1
68.2 − 4.2
57.0 − 6.2
-7.2
Margin [ 7 ]
75.4 − 2.8
48.0 − 8.1
59.2 − 12.2
15.9 − 42.7
6.3 − 33.5
57.3 − 15.1
42.1 − 21.2
-19.4
Appendix
Table B : Extended classification results on CIFAR-100N with ResNet-18. Performance gaps relative to the full-training setting are indicated as superscripts. Static pruning baselines are highlighted with gray. The mean Δ is computed across all noise types. † indicates Prune4ReL with standard CE loss to ensure fair comparison on pure pruning methods.
Noisy Type →
Clean
Real
Symmetric
Asymmetric
Mean
Pruning Method ↓
Real-A
Real-W
0.2
0.5
0.8
0.2
0.4
Δ
Full-training
95.6
90.7
78.3
91.3
85.4
65.6
90.6
85.8
–
Prune Ratio ∼ 30%
Static Random
94.6 − 1.0
89.9 − 0.7
75.0 − 3.3
89.0 − 2.3
81.2 − 4.2
57.6 − 8.0
87.9 − 2.8
82.5 − 3.3
-3.2
SmallL [ 19 ]
88.9 − 6.7
87.2 − 3.5
78.2 − 0.1
89.3 − 2.0
72.1 − 13.3
24.0 − 41.6
87.4 − 3.3
68.9 − 16.9
-10.9
Margin [ 7 ]
94.5 − 1.1
88.9 − 1.8
64.6 − 13.7
85.4 − 5.9
15.0 − 70.5
12.0 − 53.6
79.8 − 10.8
47.6 − 38.2
-24.4
Appendix
Table C : Extended classification results on CIFAR-10N with ResNet-18. Performance gaps relative to the full-training setting are indicated as superscripts. Static pruning methods are highlighted with gray. The mean Δ is computed across all noise types. † indicates Prune4ReL with standard CE loss to ensure fair comparison on pure pruning methods.
Noisy Type →
Real
Symmetric
Asymmetric
Mean
Pruning Method ↓
0.2
0.5
0.8
0.2
0.4
Δ
Full-training
56.1
71.4
58.6
39.8
72.4
63.3
–
Prune Ratio ∼ 30%
Prune4ReL [ 38 ]
64.4 + 8.3
73.0 + 1.7
68.2 + 9.6
22.3 − 17.5
72.5 + 0.1
65.9 + 2.6
+0.8
InfoBatch [ 42 ]
66.5 + 10.4
74.0 + 2.6
68.9 + 10.3
21.5 − 18.3
74.6 + 2.2
71.7 + 8.4
+2.6
InfoBatch + Ours
67.5 + 11.4
76.3 + 5.0
70.4 + 11.8
32.5 − 7.3
75.8 + 3.5
72.9 + 9.6
+5.7
Appendix
Table D : Classification results of re-labeling integration on CIFAR-100N with ResNet-18. We combine AlignPrune with SOP+ [ 29 ] and compare it against re-labeling-augmented pruning baselines. Performance gaps relative to the full-training setting are indicated as superscripts. The mean Δ is computed across all noise types.
Noisy Type →
Real
Symmetric
Asymmetric
Mean
Pruning Method ↓
Real-A
Real-W
0.2
0.5
0.8
0.2
0.4
Δ
Full-training
90.7
78.3
91.3
85.4
65.6
90.6
85.8
–
Prune Ratio ∼ 30%
Prune4ReL [ 38 ]
94.0 + 3.4
89.7 + 11.4
94.2 + 2.9
91.1 + 5.7
56.5 − 9.2
94.0 + 3.4
92.0 + 6.2
+3.4
InfoBatch [ 42 ]
94.8 + 4.1
91.1 + 12.8
95.2 + 3.9
94.0 + 8.6
66.8 + 1.2
94.7 + 4.1
93.2 + 7.4
+6.0
InfoBatch + Ours
95.1 + 4.4
91.7 + 13.4
95.8 + 4.5
94.6 + 9.1
70.7 + 5.1
95.5 + 4.9
93.5 + 7.8
+7.0
Appendix
Table E : Classification results of re-labeling integration on CIFAR-10N with ResNet-18. We combine AlignPrune with SOP+ [ 29 ] and compare it against re-labeling-augmented pruning baselines. Performance gaps relative to the full-training setting are indicated as superscripts. The mean Δ is computed across all noise types.
InfoBatch
Ours
Avg. pruning ratio per epoch
28.77%
32.94%
Appendix
Table F : Average ratio of pruned samples per epoch. Results are reported with ResNet-18 under same prune probability.
Noisy Type →
Clean
Real
Symmetric
Asymmetric
Window Size N↓
0.2
0.5
0.8
0.2
0.4
2
77.3
55.2
70.3
58.8
40.3
71.4
63.2
3
78.0
55.9
70.7
59.2
40.8
71.2
63.1
4 - 50 (avg ± std)
78.9 ± 0.2
56.5 ± 0.3
71.3 ± 0.3
60.4 ± 0.3
41.4 ± 0.3
72.2 ± 0.2
64.3 ± 0.3
Appendix
Table G : Ablation on AlignPrune with varying window sizes. We evaluate AlignPrune using window sizes ranging from 2 to 50, aiming to validate the necessity of such trajectory window design.
Figure A : Ablation on ρ : Accuracy (Left); Time Cost (Right).
Figure B : Comparison between calibrated InfoBatch and Ours.
Figure C : Loss and DAS curves of hard vs . noisy samples. Hard clean samples are identified as correctly labeled instances with the highest per-sample average loss across training, where Top x% Loss denotes the top x% of clean samples by average loss.
Reference-set Fraction →
100%
10%
1%
Reference-set Type ↓
Clean
Real
Clean
Real
Clean
Real
Clean
79.0
56.8
78.9
56.3
79.1
56.0
Pseudo by ELFS [ 66 ]
78.8
56.6
79.1
56.3
78.9
56.1
Appendix
Table H : More results with estimated pseudo clean set.
Figure D : Noise ratio in the retained subset on CIFAR-100N with Real noise-label. Best viewed in color.
Noisy Type →
Clean
Real
Symmetric
Asymmetric
Pruning Method ↓
0.2
0.5
0.8
0.2
0.4
InfoBatch
79.0 ± 0.1
56.1 ± 0.2
71.4 ± 0.2
59.7 ± 0.2
41.8 ± 0.1
71.9 ± 0.2
64.2 ± 0.2
InfoBatch + Ours
79.3 ± 0.1
59.4 ± 0.2
71.8 ± 0.1
66.0 ± 0.2
41.8 ± 0.1
72.6 ± 0.1
68.0 ± 0.2
SeTa
79.0 ± 0.1
55.6 ± 0.1
70.2 ± 0.1
59.0 ± 0.2
41.6 ± 0.1
71.4 ± 0.2
63.2 ± 0.2
SeTa + Ours
79.3 ± 0.1
56.3 ± 0.1
70.8 ± 0.2
60.5 ± 0.2
41.6 ± 0.1
71.9 ± 0.1
64.3 ± 0.2
Appendix
Table J : Statistical significance analysis on CIFAR-100N with ResNet-18.
Noisy Type →
Clean
Symmetric
Pairflip
Pruning Method ↓
0.2
0.5
0.45
Full-training
42.5
37.1
26.7
26.5
InfoBatch
42.8 + 0.3
36.7 − 0.4
26.2 − 0.6
27.4 + 0.9
InfoBatch + Ours
42.9 + 0.4
37.9 + 0.8
28.4 + 1.7
27.7 + 1.2
Appendix
Table K : Classification results on NEWS with 3-layer MLP.
Dynamic data pruning accelerates deep learning by selectively omitting less informative samples during training. While per-sample loss is a common importance metric, obtaining it can be challenging or infeasible for complex models or loss functions, often requiring significant implementation effort. This work proposes the Batch Loss Score (BLS), a computationally efficient alternative using an Exponential Moving Average (EMA) of readily available batch losses to assign scores to individual samples. We frame the batch loss, from the perspective of a single sample, as a noisy measurement of its scaled individual loss, with noise originating from stochastic batch composition. It is formally shown that the EMA mechanism functions as a first-order low-pass filter, attenuating high-frequency batch composition noise. This yields a score approximating the smoothed and persistent contribution of the individual sample to the loss, providing a theoretical grounding for BLS as a proxy for sample importance. BLS demonstrates remarkable code integration simplicity (three-line injection) and readily adapts existing per-sample loss-based methods (one-line proxy). Its effectiveness is demonstrated by enhancing two such methods to losslessly prune 20%-50% of samples across 14 datasets, 11 tasks and 18 models, highlighting its utility and broad applicability, especially for complex scenarios where per-sample loss is difficult to access. Code is available at https://github.com/mrazhou/BLS.
Qing Zhou, Bingxuan Zhao, Tao Yang +3
Northwestern Polytechnical University · The University of Hong Kong
The performance of deep learning models is affected by not only data quantity but also data quality. Data pruning is a process by which practitioners can reduce the size of a dataset by only keeping the most important training data points, thereby achieving similar test set performance. We empirically investigate two popular data pruning methods under noisy and noiseless conditions and show that these methods fail in the presence of significant label noise. We highlight that the success of data pruning is distinctly affected by three factors: redundancy in the dataset, the presence of problematic samples, and interdependence between samples. We perform a detailed investigation on commonly used benchmark classification datasets and neural network architectures. We find that our observations are consistent across data distributions and training protocols.
Leon Freese, Marthinus W. Theunissen
Faculty of Engineering, North-West University, South Africa · Centre for Artificial Intelligence Research (CAIR), South Africa · National Institute for Theoretical and Computational Sciences (NITheCS), South Africa
Dynamic data pruning techniques aim to reduce computational cost while minimizing information loss by periodically selecting representative subsets of input data during model training. However, existing methods often struggle to maintain strong worst-group accuracy, particularly at high pruning rates, across balanced and imbalanced datasets. To address this challenge, we propose RCAP, a Robust, Class-Aware, Probabilistic dynamic dataset pruning algorithm for classification tasks. RCAP applies a closed-form solution to estimate the fraction of samples to be included in the training subset for each individual class. This fraction is adaptively adjusted in every epoch using class-wise aggregated loss. Thereafter, it employs an adaptive sampling strategy that prioritizes samples having high loss for populating the class-wise subsets. We evaluate RCAP on six diverse datasets ranging from class-balanced to highly imbalanced using five distinct models across three training paradigms: training from scratch, transfer learning, and fine-tuning. Our approach consistently outperforms state-of-the-art dataset pruning methods, achieving superior worst-group accuracy at all pruning rates. Remarkably, with only 10% data, RCAP delivers >1% improvement in performance on class-imbalanced datasets compared to full data training while providing an average 8.69× speedup. The code can be accessed at https://github.com/atif-hassan/RCAP-dynamic-dataset-pruning
Atif Hassan, Swanand Khare, Jiaul H. Paik
Department of Artificial Intelligence, IIT Kharagpur, Kharagpur, West Bengal, India · Department of Mathematics, IIT Kharagpur, Kharagpur, West Bengal, India