A Label is Worth a Thousand Images in Dataset Distillation

Data $\textit{quality}$ is a crucial factor in the performance of machine learning models, a principle that dataset distillation methods exploit by compressing training datasets into much smaller counterparts that maintain similar downstream performance. Understanding how and why data distillation methods work is vital not only for improving these methods but also for revealing fundamental characteristics of "good" training data. However, a major challenge in achieving this goal is the observation that distillation approaches, which rely on sophisticated but mostly disparate methods to generate synthetic data, have little in common with each other. In this work, we highlight a largely overlooked aspect common to most of these methods: the use of soft (probabilistic) labels. Through a series of ablation experiments, we study the role of soft labels in depth. Our results reveal that the main factor explaining the performance of state-of-the-art distillation methods is not the specific techniques used to generate synthetic data but rather the use of soft labels. Furthermore, we demonstrate that not all soft labels are created equal; they must contain $\textit{structured information}$ to be beneficial. We also provide empirical scaling laws that characterize the effectiveness of soft labels as a function of images-per-class in the distilled dataset and establish an empirical Pareto frontier for data-efficient learning. Combined, our findings challenge conventional wisdom in dataset distillation, underscore the importance of soft labels in learning, and suggest new directions for improving distillation methods. Code for all experiments is available at https://github.com/sunnytqin/no-distillation.

Paper

References (39)

Scroll for more · 27 remaining

Similar papers

Peer review

Reviewer Zv9o7/10 · confidence 4/52024-07-08

Summary

The paper studies the effect of synthetic image soft labels on training performance, and show that the success of DD methods is attributed to the use of informative labels. The authors showed that the structured information in soft labels is important, and there is a tradeoff between knowledge and data. Generally, the paper conducted extensive ablations to analyze the synthetic soft labels.

Strengths

1. The paper studies the interesting and novel aspect of the role of synthetic labels in DD. 2. Thorough experiments are done and the comparisons are fair and meaningful. 3. The experimental results and analysis provide important and interesting insights that are beneficial for the DD community.

Weaknesses

I do not observe major weaknesses of the paper. However, I do have some minor concerns that I would like to discuss with the authors: 1. Observing Figure 4, it is interesting that when swapping the top-1 label with the last one, the relative performance can still be even preserved to relatively 20% and even 50% (IPC=1). The top-1 label should be the correct prediction, and swapping makes all images wrongly labeled. I wonder why there is still 20%~50% relative performance when all the training data are wrongly labeled. 2. For the experiments corresponding to Figure 7 (treatment 2), why no re-normalization? This results in probabilities that do not sum up to 1 and may cause unexpected consequences during training. 3. It seems that there are two types of labels used for analysis. One type is directly downloaded synthetic dataset (image-label pairs) in section 4. Another type is generating soft-labels via ensembling in section 5. Does the second guarantee that the ensembled soft-labels are correct (same one-hot encodings as the original pairs)? Also, using early-stopping experts have drawbacks that it does not provide correct label information (e.g. Figure 3). To what extent (how early) may the experts be useful for label generation?

Questions

See Weaknesses.

Rating

7

Confidence

4

Soundness

3

Presentation

3

Contribution

4

Limitations

Yes, limitations are adequately addressed.

Reviewer hrBt6/10 · confidence 4/52024-07-11

Summary

This paper investigates the importance of soft labels for dataset distillation methods, conducting detailed ablation experiments on the role of labels under various settings. It deeply explores the impact of labels on learning, providing an in-depth analysis and study of the intrinsic properties of labels. The work also provides empirical scaling laws that characterize the effectiveness of soft labels as a function of images-per-class in the distilled dataset and establishes an empirical Pareto frontier for data-efficient learning.

Strengths

1. This paper clearly demonstrates the crucial role that soft labels play in the effectiveness of data distillation methods. This aspect has never been carefully studied in previous dataset distillation work; it was usually considered an additional trick and did not receive much attention. This work points out new directions for data-efficient learning. 2. The designed experiments are interesting and comprehensive, presenting what constitutes good soft labels, the importance of knowledge (soft labels) in learning, and how to effectively obtain higher-quality soft labels.

Weaknesses

1. According to Table 7, the expert model (epoch) used to produce soft labels in the soft label baseline appears to be carefully selected. Does the choice of epoch introduce additional costs? Additionally, do the other mentioned dataset distillation methods also use the best soft labels from these epochs to ensure a fair comparison? 2. MTT and SRe2L are not the SOTA methods currently. I would like to know if more advanced methods like DATM [1] and G-VBSM [2] still heavily rely on soft labels and whether their performance still can not surpass the soft label baseline. Minor: line 185 In Figure 3 left. [1] Towards lossless dataset distillation via difficulty-aligned trajectory matching. ICLR 2024 [2] Generalized large-scale data condensation via various backbone and statistical matching. CVPR 2024

Questions

Please refer to weaknesses.

Rating

6

Confidence

4

Soundness

3

Presentation

4

Contribution

4

Limitations

N/A

Reviewer UKPz5/10 · confidence 4/52024-07-13

Summary

This paper introduces soft probabilistic labels to the dataset distillation task. Specifically, it finds that the labels should consider structured information and perform unequally. Experiments on diverse datasets demonstrate its effectiveness.

Strengths

1) This paper proposes the introduction of soft labeling in dataset distillation and provides an interesting analysis of the intrinsic properties of data distillation, rather than focusing on improving the base module of specific methods. 2) The method is well-supported, and the results are reliable.

Weaknesses

1) The motivation needs to be stated more clearly. Why are label-level methods regarded as superior to image-level methods? 2) In the introduction, the author introduces several techniques such as 'expert' models, Pareto frontier, and knowledge-data scaling laws but lacks detailed explanation. 3) Section 3.2 requires reorganization to enhance readability. 4) The structure information needs to be expressed more clearly and intuitively.

Questions

1) In the Method section, could different soft-labeling strategies (excluding cutmix) influence the entire pipeline? 2) Does early stopping result in varied performances across different baselines and datasets? How do the authors address this issue? 3) In the experiment, the author uses the swap test to validate the structure information and claims “Top labels contain structured information and the non-top contain unstructured noise”. Why not just remove the unstructured noise?

Rating

5

Confidence

4

Soundness

3

Presentation

2

Contribution

3

Limitations

1) The writing requires improvement as the author attempts to cover too information without adequately establishing connections and justifying the necessity of the key technologies. 2) The tables and figures need reorganization to enhance clarity. Reviewer currently struggles to understand their intended messages. 3) Some typos need to be corrected, such as those in the representation of Figure 4. 4) The limitations mentioned in the Conclusion are not clearly stated.

Authorsrebuttal2024-08-05

Glossary of Key Terms

__Expert Models__: Also referred to as teacher models, these are models that have been trained on the original training data and are used to generate soft labels. __Pareto Frontier__: In the context of dataset distillation, the objective is to optimize for model performance and data budgets. The Pareto frontier represents the set of points where each point corresponds to the best model accuracy achievable for a given data budget. One cannot achieve better model performance with the same data budget. __Knowledge-Data Scaling Laws__: Data scaling laws describe how the performance of a model (e.g., measured by test accuracy) improves as a function of dataset size. We propose knowledge-data scaling laws to describe how the use of expert knowledge (i.e., soft labels) can shift the standard scaling law.

Authorsrebuttal2024-08-05

Limitations

__Soft Label Baseline__: We have highlighted the importance of soft labels using a simple soft label baseline. We leave it for future work to explore the best ways to optimize both labels and images during distillation, and to study how each can impact student learning in different ways. Additionally, future work can investigate what other information, beyond expert knowledge, can be distilled to achieve data compression. __Label Generation Strategy__: We have explored label generation strategies based on existing methodologies, including using pretrained experts and Ra-BPTT. We believe future research could further explore optimal ways to generate more informative labels. __Data Modality__: Similar to most dataset distillation work, we have primarily focused on image classification tasks. While we believe our conclusions can generalize to other data modalities, a limitation of this work is the diversity of tasks explored.

Reviewer pAYe6/10 · confidence 4/52024-07-18

Summary

This paper analyses the role of soft labels used in dataset distillation. Experiments with different ablation studies show that the performance of soft labels based data distillation approaches is primarily attributed to the use of soft labels. Secondly, the authors study the various types of soft labels and their effect on model performance. Additionally an empirical scaling law is provided to characterize the relation between effectiveness of soft labels and image per class in distilled dataset.

Strengths

The paper is written clearly with well-presented motivation and is easy to follow Extensive analysis and ablations are presented providing a better understanding of role of labels in dataset distillation The paper focuses on a largely overlooked aspect of dataset distillation methods: the degree of contribution of soft labels.

Weaknesses

The paper could benefit from a theoretical analysis of why soft labels are so effective. Additionally, the generalizability of the findings to data distillation in other modalities could be insightful. Minor comments: 1. The description in line 222 appears inconsistent with results in figure 4. IPC=1 appears more robust to swapping of top labels compared to IPC=10 2. A few writing and grammar errors exist in related work, line numbers 87-90. Also, 'generation' should be 'general' in line 167 3. In Figure 2, it might be better to use the same dataset to highlight the dependence on expert accuracy and label entropy.

Questions

I am concerned about the use of experts at tuned epoch for comparison of soft label baseline with previous methods. Are the expert epochs also tuned for previous approaches? Can the authors provide insight as to why structured information is more beneficial in soft labels in the case of dataset distillation while the opposite is true for knowledge distillation as mentioned in related work? It is unclear how past approaches in figure 1 right (which as I understood to originally use soft labels) were adapted to hard labels. Is it done by performing argmax on the soft labels?

Rating

6

Confidence

4

Soundness

3

Presentation

3

Contribution

3

Limitations

N/A

Reviewer Zv9o2024-08-08

Thank you for the rebuttal

The rebuttal has addressed my concerns. I believe the paper is insightful and meaningful for the DD community. I am keeping my score and vote for acceptance.

Reviewer hrBt2024-08-09

Thanks for the reply

I have read this paper and the author rebuttal (regarding all the reviewers' questions) thoroughly. I appreciate the contribution of this work and keep my score.

Program Chairsdecision2024-09-25

Decision

Accept (poster)

© 2026 NYSGPT2525 LLC