Dataset Distillation via Adversarial Prediction Matching
Mingyang Chen, Bo Huang, JUNDA LU, Bing Li, Yi Wang, Minhao Cheng, Wei Wang
OpenReview ground truth
TL;DR — We introduce a novel memory-efficient dataset distillation framework that allows flexible tradeoffs between time and memory budgets, notably surpassing state-of-the-art for distilling benchmark datasets including ImageNet-1K.
Abstract
Dataset distillation is the technique of synthesizing smaller condensed datasets from large original datasets while retaining necessary information to persist the effect. In this paper, we approach the dataset distillation problem from a novel perspective: we regard minimizing the prediction discrepancy on the real data distribution between models, which are respectively trained on the large original dataset and on the small distilled dataset, as a conduit for condensing information from the raw data into the distilled version. An adversarial framework is proposed to solve the problem efficiently. In contrast to existing distillation methods involving nested optimization or long-range gradient unrolling, our approach hinges on single-level optimization. This ensures the memory efficiency of our method and provides a flexible tradeoff between time and memory budgets, allowing us to distil ImageNet-1K using a minimum of only 6.5GB of GPU memory. Under the optimal tradeoff strategy, it requires only 2.5$\times$ less memory and 5$\times$ less runtime compared to the state-of-the-art. Empirically, our method can produce synthetic datasets just 10\% the size of the original, yet achieve, on average, 94\% of the test accuracy of models trained on the full original datasets including ImageNet-1K, significantly surpassing state-of-the-art. Additionally, extensive tests reveal that our distilled datasets excel in cross-architecture generalization capabilities.
Author context
Most prolific author: 6 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.
Battle history — 30 comparisons
Ranked above opponent in 65% of matchups.
Judge assessments
Mean overall score 0.0 ± 0.0 (n = 30)