MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402903985 · doi:10.1109/cvprw63382.2024.00765

ATOM: Attention Mixer for Efficient Dataset Distillation

2024· article· en· W4402903985 on OpenAlexaff
Samir Khaki, Ahmad Sajedi, Kai Wang, Lucy Liu, Yuri Lawryshyn, Konstantinos N. Plataniotis

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNeural Networks and Applications
Canadian institutionsRoyal Bank of CanadaUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDistillationAtom (system on chip)Computer scienceAtom opticsAtomic physicsPhysicsChemistryParallel computingChromatography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent works in dataset distillation seek to minimize training expenses by generating a condensed synthetic dataset that encapsulates the information present in a larger real dataset. These approaches ultimately aim to attain test accuracy levels akin to those achieved by models trained on the entirety of the original dataset. Previous studies in feature and distribution matching have achieved significant results without incurring the costs of bi-level optimization in the distillation process. Despite their convincing efficiency, many of these methods suffer from marginal downstream performance improvements, limited distillation of contextual information, and subpar cross-architecture generalization. To address these challenges in dataset distillation, we propose the ATtentiOn Mixer (ATOM) module to efficiently distill large datasets using a mixture of channel and spatial-wise attention in the feature matching process. Spatial-wise attention helps guide the learning process based on consistent localization of classes in their respective images, allowing for distillation from a broader receptive field. Meanwhile, channel-wise attention captures the contextual information associated with the class itself, thus making the synthetic image more informative for training. By integrating both types of attention, our ATOM module demonstrates superior performance across various computer vision datasets, including CIFAR10/100 and Tiny-Imagenet. Notably, our method significantly improves performance in scenarios with a low number of images per class, thereby enhancing its potential. Furthermore, we maintain the improvement on cross-architectures and applications such as neural architecture search.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.967
Threshold uncertainty score0.169

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.272 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNeural Networks and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207