Less Is More in the Long Tail: Stage-Adaptive Sample Selection for Annotation-Efficient Dense Prediction
Authors: Xiaofei Du, Lei Zhang, Shuyu Yan, Manning Wang, Zhijian Song
Organizations: Digital Medical Research Center, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Fudan University, Shanghai 200032, China · Shanghai Key Laboratory of Medical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention, Shanghai 200032, China · Frontier Innovation Center, Department of Systems Biology for Medicine, Qidong-Fudan Innovative Institute of Medical Sciences, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Zhongshan Hospital Clinical Center for Biotherapy, Fudan University, Shanghai 200032, China · Department of Computer Science, University of Exeter, Exeter EX4 4QF, United Kingdom
Deep learning performance generally improves with increasing training data, yet this scaling is fundamentally constrained by annotation cost in large-scale dense prediction tasks with long-tailed category distributions, where pixel- or voxel-level annotation is prohibitively expensive. We propose SASS (Stage-Adaptive Sample Selection), a stage-adaptive data-selection framework for pool-based active learning in long-tailed dense prediction. SASS combines three components: label-free self-supervised gradient scoring, prior-guided category rebalancing with validation-driven feedback, and stage-adaptive acquisition aligned with model training dynamics. This design avoids candidate ground-truth masks during gradient scoring while making acquisition responsive to long-tail imbalance and evolving representations. We evaluate SASS on a multimodal 3D medical segmentation testbed comprising over 100,000 samples spanning 108 anatomical structures. SASS recovers 98.3% of full-dataset performance with a 40% training-pool annotation budget, outperforming BADGE by 5.1 percentage points. Moreover, SASS exhibits a statistically supported less-is-more pattern, surpassing full-dataset training at the Hard-group level and, at the structure level, for the pancreas and gallbladder. More broadly, SASS shows that annotation-efficient learning depends not only on which samples are selected, but also on how the annotation budget is distributed across categories and when model-derived scores begin to guide selection.
Figures & tables
Fig. 1 : Overview of SASS. The training pool grows progressively from ∣S(0)∣≈0.10N to the target budget through periodic expansion. At each selection round, the Self-Supervised Acquisition Scorer computes label-free gradient scores Gi(t) from a teacher-student DINO objective, while the Prior-Guided Scorer produces a Scale-Aware Prior Oi and a Coverage-Balance Prior Di(t) , both enhanced by Validation-Driven Feedback ϕ(c,t) . The Stage-Adaptive Acquisition Score normalizes and combines these signals into Si(t) , with weights shifting from prior-dominant exploration to gradient-dominant refinement. In the ternary simplex, each stage is placed at its weight vector, the three vertices denoting full weight on Gi , Oi and Di ; Stage 1 lies on the Oi – Di edge, where the gradient weight is zero, whereas Stages 2 and 3 lie inside the triangle, so both priors keep non-zero weight. Selected samples are refined by a Group-Budget Constraint and reordered by a Forgetting-Guided Curriculum before training.
Group
Random
Entropy
Coreset
BADGE
LESS
LESS+O
SASS
Full
Full+CB
Δ (S–R)
Easy ( n=59 )
0.651 ± 0.003
0.665 ± 0.003
0.661 ± 0.003
0.674 ± 0.003
0.674 ± 0.003
0.691 ± 0.003
0.715 ± 0.003
0.733 ± 0.002
0.732 ± 0.003
+0.064
Medium ( n=31 )
0.596 ± 0.004
0.610 ± 0.004
0.605 ± 0.004
0.618 ± 0.004
0.618 ± 0.004
0.641 ± 0.004
0.675 ± 0.004
0.690 ± 0.003
0.693 ± 0.004
+0.079
Hard ( n=18 )
0.525 ± 0.006
0.538 ± 0.006
0.534 ± 0.006
0.549 ± 0.005
0.553 ± 0.005
0.578 ± 0.005
0.622 ± 0.005
0.610 ± 0.005
0.618 ± 0.005
+0.097
Overall (108)
0.614 ± 0.003
0.628 ± 0.003
0.624 ± 0.003
0.637 ± 0.003
0.638 ± 0.003
0.658 ± 0.003
0.688 ± 0.003
0.700 ± 0.002
0.702 ± 0.003
+0.074
TABLE I : Difficulty-stratified test Dice at epoch 300 under 10-click evaluation (mean ± std, three runs). Subset methods use 40%; Full and Full+CB use 100%. Bold: best 40%-budget result.
TABLE II : Dice for 18 high-priority reporting targets under the 10-click protocol at epoch 300. Rows include bilateral and lung-lobe aggregates and report mean ± std across three runs; the final row is the unweighted mean of the 18 displayed row means. Targets were selected by diagnostic relevance [ 28 ] . † / ‡ : see Section IV-A2 .
Fig. 3 : Category-level budget comparison. SASS-40% closely tracks Full-100% across all six categories while improving substantially over Random and SASS-20%.
Structure
ns
Rand
Full
SASS
Δ (S–F)
95% CI
ϕ
Pancreas
1
0.508 ± 0.012
0.590 ± 0.009
0.607 ± 0.010 †
+0.017
[0.004,0.030]
0.72
Adrenal (L/R)
1
0.483 ± 0.015
0.567 ± 0.012
0.586 ± 0.012 ‡
+0.019
[−0.001,0.039]
0.81
Esophagus
1
0.497 ± 0.013
0.578 ± 0.010
0.593 ± 0.011 ‡
+0.015
[−0.003,0.033]
0.68
Heart RV
1
0.418 ± 0.017
0.496 ± 0.014
0.507 ± 0.014 ‡
+0.011
[−0.008,0.030]
0.89
Heart LA
1
0.441 ± 0.015
0.534 ± 0.012
0.549 ± 0.013 ‡
+0.015
[−0.005,0.035]
0.83
Lung vessel
1
0.453 ± 0.014
0.545 ± 0.011
0.559 ± 0.012 ‡
+0.014
[−0.004,0.032]
0.76
TABLE III : Per-structure Dice and bootstrap uncertainty for seven representative Hard structures (mean ± std, three runs). ns : canonical structure categories per row after the mapping in Supplementary Table S1; ϕ : validation-feedback gap. † marks differences whose 95% CI excludes zero; intervals are not adjusted for multiplicity across structures. ‡ : positive mean difference whose interval includes zero.
Category
Random
Full
Full+CB
Entropy
Coreset
BADGE
LESS
LESS+O
SASS
Δ (S–R)
A: Abdominal
0.628 ± 0.004
0.714 ± 0.003
0.716 ± 0.004
0.643 ± 0.004
0.639 ± 0.004
0.651 ± 0.004
0.654 ± 0.004
0.675 ± 0.003
0.705 ± 0.004
+0.077
B: Thorax
0.589 ± 0.004
0.681 ± 0.003
0.684 ± 0.004
0.603 ± 0.004
0.599 ± 0.004
0.611 ± 0.004
0.612 ± 0.004
0.635 ± 0.004
0.668 ± 0.004
+0.079
C: GI Tract
0.601 ± 0.005
0.695 ± 0.004
0.698 ± 0.004
0.616 ± 0.005
0.612 ± 0.005
0.624 ± 0.004
0.626 ± 0.004
0.649 ± 0.004
0.683 ± 0.004
+0.082
D: Vascular
0.568 ± 0.005
0.662 ± 0.004
0.666 ± 0.005
0.583 ± 0.005
0.578 ± 0.005
0.591 ± 0.005
0.594 ± 0.005
0.619 ± 0.005
0.649 ± 0.005
+0.081
E: Brain & Tumor
0.614 ± 0.005
0.706 ± 0.004
0.709 ± 0.005
0.628 ± 0.005
0.624 ± 0.005
0.636 ± 0.005
0.639 ± 0.005
0.657 ± 0.005
0.691 ± 0.004
+0.077
F: Skeletal
0.641 ± 0.003
0.727 ± 0.003
0.726 ± 0.003
0.652 ± 0.004
0.649 ± 0.004
0.659 ± 0.003
0.663 ± 0.003
0.677 ± 0.003
0.704 ± 0.003
+0.063
TABLE IV : Per-category test Dice at epoch 300 (mean ± std, three runs). Subset methods use 40%; Full and Full+CB use 100%. Bold: best 40%-budget result.
Fig. 4 : Hyperparameter sensitivity. Overall and Hard-structure Dice remain stable around the adopted configuration (dashed lines) for (a) stage boundary T1 , (b) feedback sharpness κ , and (c) initial pool ratio ρ0 .
ρ
Samples
Overall
Easy
Med.
Hard
Recovery
0.20
∼ 14k
0.660
0.692
0.645
0.582
94.3%
0.40
28k
0.688
0.715
0.675
0.622
98.3%
0.60
∼ 42k
0.694
0.721
0.682
0.626
99.1%
1.00
70,351
0.700
0.733
0.690
0.610
100%
TABLE V : Annotation-budget scaling on the held-out test set (epoch 300, 10-click). Recovery is relative to Full overall Dice.
Method
Budget
Overall
Medium
Hard
Full Dataset
100%
0.687
0.677
0.596
Random
40%
0.602
0.583
0.512
LESS+Organ
40%
0.647
0.629
0.563
SASS
40%
0.675
0.663
0.604
TABLE VI : Volume-disjoint robustness check. All 40%-budget methods use the same annotation budget.
Fig. 5 : Cumulative ablation at 40% budget. Bars: overall test Dice; red values: incremental gains; purple: Hard-structure Dice. Components grouped into scoring, adaptive acquisition, and stabilization.
Fig. 6 : Component interaction analysis. Each cell: Dice gain over Random for the corresponding pair; diagonal: individual components. Parentheses report the interaction beyond additivity, computed as the paired gain minus the sum of the two individual gains.
Fig. 7 : Selection evolution. (a) Category distribution per query batch; dashed line: Skeletal candidate-pool share (29.5%). (b) Difficulty-group distribution: Hard share rises from 19.8% to 29.4% ( 2.1× candidate-pool proportion). (c) Final cumulative pool by method: SASS reduces Skeletal to 14.8%, shifting budget toward Abdominal ( ∼ 32%) and GI ( ∼ 14%).
Deep learning for 3D medical image segmentation requires extensive manual annotations, a major bottleneck in volumetric medical imaging. Active learning aims to reduce this burden by selecting informative samples for annotation, but most methods assume that an initial labeled set is already available. This leaves the cold-start problem largely unresolved: how to select the first volumes from a fully unlabeled pool before any task-specific model is trained. We propose CSCS, a Curriculum-Stratified Cold-Start framework that adapts initial sample selection to the structure of the unlabeled dataset. CSCS combines two self-supervised, label-free signals: local typicality, measuring representativeness in the embedding space, and reconstruction-based uncertainty, used as a proxy for sample difficulty. These signals are combined through a weighted geometric score, where the weighting is determined by a closed-form pacing rule based on the effective annotation budget and the Difficulty-Coverage Ratio, a pool-level statistic measuring the alignment between difficulty and representativeness. We evaluate CSCS on four 3D medical image segmentation benchmarks: BraTS, FeTA, Spleen, and an in-house fetal MRI dataset. Using nnU-Net as downstream segmentation model, CSCS shows consistently competitive performance across datasets and annotation budgets, with the strongest gains in low-to-mid annotation regimes. These results suggest that dataset-aware cold-start initialization can improve the robustness of active learning for 3D medical image segmentation by adapting sample selection to the geometry of the unlabeled pool.
Active learning (AL) promises to reduce the cost of medical imaging projects by lowering the number of clinical labels required. However, practical deployment requires committing to a sampling strategy before the full annotation budget is spent, and choosing the wrong strategy can increase rather than decrease costs. We propose Active-Learning Deployment Advisor (ALDA), a deployment-oriented framework for AL method selection under clinical performance constraints. Given a short pilot phase, ALDA fits a parametric learning-curve model to each candidate strategy, estimates whether that strategy is expected to reach a required clinical performance target, and predicts the number of expert annotations needed to do so. In addition to absolute annotation cost, ALDA introduces a deployment window that quantifies the sensitivity of this cost estimate to uncertainty in the clinical threshold. The final recommendation follows a risk-aware rule: among strategies with near-optimal predicted cost, ALDA prefers the strategy with the narrowest deployment window, the most robust to threshold revisions. Experiments on four medical imaging classification domains show that ALDA predicts the deployment-optimal method from a pilot of 15-30% of the intended budget and reduces annotation costs by up to 82% compared with a poor strategy choice. Rather than introducing a new sampling heuristic, ALDA provides a practical decision layer that answers a deployment-critical question: how many labels are enough?
Julia Machnio, Mads Nielsen, Mostafa Mehdipour Ghazi
Pioneer Centre for AI, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
Semi-supervised learning (SSL) has become a promising solution to alleviate the annotation burden of deep learning-based medical image segmentation models. While recent advances in foundation model-driven SSL have pushed the boundary to extremely limited annotation scenarios, they fail to maintain robust competitive performance in complex imaging modalities. In this paper, we propose SemiSAM-O1, an annotation-efficient framework using only one annotated template image for segmentation. SemiSAM-O1 extends the specialist-generalist collaborative learning framework to the extreme one-label setting by fully exploiting the foundation model's feature representation capability beyond its prompting interface. SemiSAM-O1 operates in two stages. In the first stage, the foundation model's encoder extracts dense features from all volumes, and class prototypes derived from the single annotated template are propagated to the unlabeled pool via feature similarity to produce coarse initial pseudo-labels. In the second stage, an iterative training-and-refinement loop progressively improves both the segmentation model and the pseudo-labels over multiple rounds, where each round trains the model from scratch on current pseudo-labels and generates updated predictions with voxel-wise uncertainty estimates. An uncertainty-guided refinement step further leverages the foundation model's global feature space to correct high-uncertainty regions by aggregating labels from their most similar confident neighbors, establishing a virtuous cycle of mutual improvement. Extensive experiments on a wide range of segmentation tasks across different modalities and anatomical targets demonstrate that SemiSAM-O1 significantly narrows the performance gap between one-label semi-supervised learning and full supervision, while significantly reducing the computational overhead of online foundation model inference.
Yichi Zhang, Le Xue, Bichun Xu +6
Artificial Intelligence Innovation and Incubation Institute, Fudan University, Shanghai, China. · Shanghai Academy of Artificial Intelligence for Science, Shanghai, China. · Department of Radiotherapy, Tongji Hospital, School of Medicine, Tongji University, Shanghai, China. +2