Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper critically evaluates dataset distillation (DD) methods against coreset selection (CS) strategies through large-scale experiments on standardized datasets. The authors benchmark seven state-of-the-art DD methods and find that many fail to outperform simple random subsets, with the best DD methods being comparable to or worse than coresets while incurring higher construction costs. Additionally, coresets demonstrate superior representativeness and coverage of the original data distribution, challenging the prevailing assumption that distilled datasets are inherently more expressive than real sample subsets.
Coresets often outperform state-of-the-art dataset distillation methods, revealing that less complex approaches can be more effective and efficient in data-centric learning.
Dataset distillation (DD) has emerged as a prominent approach in data centric machine learning, aiming to synthesize compact training sets for efficient training by compressing the information in large datasets into a small number of synthetic samples. However, DD methods are often evaluated under inconsistent evaluation protocols, ranging from standard ERM to single/multi-teacher supervision, making it difficult to isolate the effectiveness of distilled data from evaluation. Moreover, many prior methods claim that DD outperforms data pruning approaches such as coreset selection (CS), based on the assumption that restricting condensed datasets to subsets of real samples fundamentally limits their expressiveness. In this work, we critically evaluate DD methods through large-scale experiments using standardized datasets and evaluation protocols to assess their intrinsic effectiveness. We benchmark seven state-of-the-art (SOTA) DD methods on ImageNet-1K, ImageNet100, and ImageNette, using three widely adopted training protocols against three CS strategies. Our results show that while some DD methods fail to outperform even simple random subsets, the SOTA DD approaches are comparable to or worse than coresets on large-scale datasets and incur a substantially higher cost for construction. Beyond accuracy, we also evaluate the representativeness, diversity, and quality of condensed sets, and find that coresets consistently achieve better coverage of the original data distribution. These findings highlight the limited practical advantages of current DD methods and show that coresets remain competitive and are often a more computationally efficient alternative for data-centric learning.
