Abstract
The lottery ticket hypothesis posits the existence of winning tickets: sparse subnetworks that, when trained in isolation from their original initialization, match the accuracy of the full dense network. The predominant method for discovering such tickets, iterative magnitude pruning, alternates pruning with full retraining from scratch until convergence over many cycles. Similarly, deep active learning also retrains a model from scratch after each acquisition round as new labels become available. Despite this shared reliance on iterative retraining with a substantial computational overhead, the two paradigms have been studied separately. We observe that the iterative training loop inherent to pool-based active learning already provides the exact computational structure that iterative magnitude pruning exploits, and propose Improve & Prune (I&P), a method that integrates magnitude pruning into each active learning retraining cycle at practically no additional cost. This raises a key empirical question: can iterative magnitude pruning produce winning tickets under the non-stationary data regime of active learning? We investigate this question across multiple acquisition functions, architecture families, and image classification datasets, including an active fine-tuning scenario. Our results demonstrate that I&P yields sparse, deployable models at each active learning iteration. Those match the accuracy of their dense counterparts at sparsities up to 95%, effectively obtaining winning tickets as a byproduct of the active learning pipeline. These per-iteration sparse models can address two computational bottlenecks - per-round model retraining and acquisition scoring over the unlabeled pool - that currently prevent the practical adoption of DAL on large architectures and large unlabeled pools.
Explore similar work
Jun 10, 2026cs.CV
Neural network pruning reduces model size by removing less important parameters while aiming to preserve predictive performance. Although the Lottery Ticket Hypothesis (LTH) shows that sparse subnetworks can match dense networks when trained from suitable initializations, its iterative pruning procedure requires multiple complete training cycles. This work evaluates progressive magnitude-based pruning as a single-cycle alternative. The method gradually increases sparsity during training using a linear schedule and updates pruning masks based on active weight magnitudes. We conduct systematic experiments on CIFAR-10 and MNIST across ResNet, VGG-style, and LeNet architectures, comparing the proposed method with representative iterative and initialization-based pruning baselines, including LTH, SNIP, and GraSP. On CIFAR-10, the method achieves 95.12% accuracy on ResNet-18 at 72.9% sparsity, compared with 90.5% reported for LTH. At extreme sparsity, it achieves 93.13% accuracy on a VGG-like architecture at 97% sparsity, compared with approximately 92.0% for SNIP, and 93.44% accuracy on VGG-19 at 97.97% sparsity, compared with 92.19% for GraSP at 98% sparsity. A sparsity-accuracy analysis on ResNet-18 further shows that accuracy remains within 0.1 percentage points of the dense baseline across 70--85% sparsity. These results indicate that progressive magnitude-based pruning provides an effective single-cycle approach for neural network sparsification under the evaluated settings.
Romana Qureshi, Hafida Benhidour, Said Kerrache +1
May 21, 2026cs.LG
Unstructured magnitude pruning at high sparsity can reduce neural network accuracy to near-random performance, while labeled retraining may be unavailable in practical deployment settings. Label-free post-pruning repair methods can partially recover collapsed sparse models, but their effectiveness depends on the sparse model left by the upstream pruning allocation. This paper studies how sparsity allocation shapes post-repair recoverability under a fixed activation-statistic repair backend. We compare ERK and LAMP allocations under the same label-free repair protocol across CIFAR-10, CIFAR-100, and Imagenette with ResNet-18, ResNet-34, and ResNet-50 at sparsities from 90% to 95.5%. The results show that allocation choice can substantially change post-repair accuracy at the same global sparsity, and that the preferred allocation varies with architecture, dataset difficulty, and sparsity level. We identify a repair-sensitive transition regime in which BatchNorm recalibration begins to fail, while activation-statistic repair still recovers nontrivial accuracy. Additional validation on ImageNet-100 and DenseNet-121 shows that the location and width of this recoverable regime depend on data scale and connectivity structure. These findings suggest that pruning allocation and post-pruning repair should be studied jointly, since the allocation determines how much activation signal remains available for label-free recovery.
Qishi Zhan, Minxuan Hu, Liang He
Jun 30, 2026cs.CV
Active learning (AL) performance is known to be budget-dependent, yet regimes are typically defined by heuristic label counts that fail to generalize across datasets or architectures. We characterize AL dynamics by reframing budget regimes as shifts in the dominant generalization mechanism. By reinterpreting PAC-style risk components as dynamic interacting terms, we prove that dominance shifts are structurally unavoidable, creating a moving bottleneck for generalization. We operationalize this using measurable proxies and a segmented regression procedure to identify a tripartite taxonomy: data-driven, transition, and model-driven phases. Our framework explains the long-standing observation that representativeness, coverage, and uncertainty strategies excel at different stages. Experiments across natural and medical imaging show that AL efficiency depends on the alignment between the strategy's inductive bias and the active bottleneck. Moreover, self-supervised representation shift transitions earlier along the labeling trajectory, highlighting the role of representation quality in shaping AL dynamics. Overall, this work provides a unified framework for the next generation of transition-aware AL algorithms.
Julia Machnio, Mads Nielsen, Mostafa Mehdipour Ghazi