Spanning Training Progress: Temporal Dual-Depth Scoring (TDDS) for Enhanced Dataset Pruning

November 22, 2023 Β· Declared Dead Β· πŸ› Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

πŸ‘» CAUSE OF DEATH: Ghosted
No code link whatsoever

"No code URL or promise found in abstract"

Evidence collected by the PWNC Scanner

Authors Xin Zhang, Jiawei Du, Yunsong Li, Weiying Xie, Joey Tianyi Zhou arXiv ID 2311.13613 Category cs.CV: Computer Vision Cross-listed cs.LG Citations 31 Venue Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Last Checked 4 months ago
Abstract
Dataset pruning aims to construct a coreset capable of achieving performance comparable to the original, full dataset. Most existing dataset pruning methods rely on snapshot-based criteria to identify representative samples, often resulting in poor generalization across various pruning and cross-architecture scenarios. Recent studies have addressed this issue by expanding the scope of training dynamics considered, including factors such as forgetting event and probability change, typically using an averaging approach. However, these works struggle to integrate a broader range of training dynamics without overlooking well-generalized samples, which may not be sufficiently highlighted in an averaging manner. In this study, we propose a novel dataset pruning method termed as Temporal Dual-Depth Scoring (TDDS), to tackle this problem. TDDS utilizes a dual-depth strategy to achieve a balance between incorporating extensive training dynamics and identifying representative samples for dataset pruning. In the first depth, we estimate the series of each sample's individual contributions spanning the training progress, ensuring comprehensive integration of training dynamics. In the second depth, we focus on the variability of the sample-wise contributions identified in the first depth to highlight well-generalized samples. Extensive experiments conducted on CIFAR and ImageNet datasets verify the superiority of TDDS over previous SOTA methods. Specifically on CIFAR-100, our method achieves 54.51% accuracy with only 10% training data, surpassing random selection by 7.83% and other comparison methods by at least 12.69%.
Community shame:
Not yet rated
Community Contributions

Found the code? Know the venue? Think something is wrong? Let us know!

πŸ“œ Similar Papers

In the same crypt β€” Computer Vision

πŸŒ… πŸŒ… Old Age

Fast R-CNN

Ross Girshick

cs.CV πŸ› ICCV πŸ“š 27.7K cites 11 years ago

Died the same way β€” πŸ‘» Ghosted