Emphasizing Discriminative Features for Dataset Distillation in Complex Scenarios
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dataset distillation has demonstrated strong performance on simple datasets like CIFAR, MNIST, and TinyImageNet but struggles to achieve similar results in more complex scenarios. In this paper, we propose EDF (emphasizes the discriminative features), a dataset distillation method that enhances key discriminative regions in synthetic images using Grad-CAM activation maps. Our approach is inspired by a key observation: in simple datasets, high-activation areas typically occupy most of the image, whereas in complex scenarios, the size of these areas is much smaller. Unlike previous methods that treat all pixels equally when synthesizing images, EDF uses Grad-CAM activation maps to enhance high-activation areas. From a supervision perspective, we downplay supervision signals produced by lower trajectory-matching losses, as they contain common patterns. Additionally, to help the DD community better explore complex scenarios, we build the Complex Dataset Distillation (Comp-DD) benchmark by meticulously selecting sixteen subsets, eight easy and eight hard, from ImageNet-1K. In particular, EDF consistently outperforms SOTA results in complex scenarios, such as ImageNet-1K subsets. Hopefully, more researchers will be inspired and encouraged to improve the practicality and efficacy of DD. Our code and benchmark have been made public at NUS-HPC-AI-Lab/EDF.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it