PapersWithELO
← ICLR 2024 leaderboard

BWS: Best Window Selection Based on Sample Scores for Data Pruning across Broad Ranges

Hoyong Choi, Nohyun Ki, Hye Won Chung

self/semi-supervised learningData subset selectiondata pruningdata-efficient learning
49.30100
Fused
band ≈ ±14 pct pts (from σ = 0.28)
46.50100
Mimo
band ≈ ±21 pct pts (from σ = 0.41)
51.20100
DeepSeek
band ≈ ±19 pct pts (from σ = 0.38)

OpenReview ground truth

Rejected

TL;DR — We introduce a universal and efficient data subset selection method, Best Window Selection (BWS), capable of maintaining competitive performance in data pruning across a wide range of selection ratios.

Abstract

Data subset selection aims to find a smaller yet informative subset of a large dataset that can approximate the full-dataset training, addressing challenges associated with training neural networks on large-scale datasets. However, existing methods tend to specialize in either high or low selection ratio regimes, lacking a universal approach that consistently achieves competitive performance across a broad range of selection ratios. We introduce a universal and efficient data subset selection method, Best Window Selection (BWS), by proposing a method to choose the best window subset from samples ordered based on their difficulty scores. This approach offers flexibility by allowing the choice of window intervals that span from easy to difficult samples. Furthermore, we provide an efficient mechanism for selecting the best window subset by evaluating its quality using kernel ridge regression. Our experimental results demonstrate the superior performance of BWS compared to other baselines across a broad range of selection ratios over datasets, including CIFAR-10/100 and ImageNet, and the scenarios involving training from random initialization or fine-tuning of pre-trained models.

Author context

Most prolific author: 3 submissions (credibility 1.00).

No mass-submission penalty for this paper (authors within normal submission volume).

Aggregate statistics only — no individual author rankings.

Ranking trajectory

Percentile by tournament round — convergence indicates rating stability.

Judge assessments

Mean overall score 0.0 ± 0.0 (n = 36)