Does active learning's retraining loop maintain similar accuracy gains at larger extrapolation distances?

Your question asks whether active learning—a technique where a model iteratively identifies which new examples to learn from—maintains its accuracy gains when generalizing far from the training domain.

The preprints provided don't directly address active learning's retraining loop or how accuracy gains degrade with extrapolation distance. However, several papers do explore related territory on *transfer learning* across domain shifts, which is conceptually adjacent.

What the archive does show:

Transfer learning can preserve accuracy gains across substantial geometric shifts. When a particle-flow reconstruction model pretrained on one collider detector (CLICdet) was fine-tuned on a different detector design (CLD), it achieved the same performance as training from scratch using 10× fewer target-domain samples [AG-2025.02-1472]. Similarly, generative calorimeter simulation models adapted across diverse detector geometries with only 100 target-domain samples showed a 44% improvement in reconstruction fidelity over training from scratch [AG-2025.11-1571]. This suggests that *informed retraining* can be sample-efficient even when jumping to new configurations.

However, these results differ from what active learning specifically asks: whether *querying the most informative samples* sustains gains as you extrapolate. The archive also shows that neural scaling laws in particle physics follow predictable power-law behavior [AG-2026.02-1215], implying that increased compute reliably drives performance toward asymptotic limits—but again, not through active selection.

The gap: None of these preprints directly measure how active learning's selection strategy performs when the test distribution diverges significantly from the training domain.