Dataset distillation (DD) has emerged as a prominent approach in data centric machine learning, aiming to synthesize compact training sets for efficient training by compressing the information in large datasets into a small number of synthetic samples. However, DD methods are often evaluated under inconsistent evaluation protocols, ranging from standard ERM to single/multi-teacher supervision, making it difficult to isolate the effectiveness of distilled data from evaluation. Moreover, many prior methods claim that DD outperforms data pruning approaches such as coreset selection (CS), based on the assumption that restricting condensed datasets to subsets of real samples fundamentally limits their expressiveness. In this work, we critically evaluate DD methods through large-scale experiments using standardized datasets and evaluation protocols to assess their intrinsic effectiveness. We benchmark seven state-of-the-art (SOTA) DD methods on ImageNet-1K, ImageNet100, and ImageNette, using three widely adopted training protocols against four CS strategies. Our results show that while some DD methods fail to outperform even simple random subsets, the SOTA DD approaches are comparable to or worse than coresets on large-scale datasets and incur a substantially higher cost for construction. Beyond accuracy, we also evaluate the representativeness, diversity, and quality of condensed sets, and find that coresets consistently achieve better coverage of the original data distribution. These findings highlight the limited practical advantages of current DD methods and show that coresets remain competitive and are often a more computationally efficient alternative for data-centric learning.
Debopam Sanyal, Hongjie Chen, Riya Elizabeth Kuriyan, Arth Tak, Divya Kothandaraman, Akshay Mehra, Joshua Kimball, Alexey Tumanov
Pretrained transformers spend a large share of their inference compute inside self-attention, yet the per-head query-key interaction is structurally low-rank by construction. We ask a diagnostic question: across layers and architectures, which heads actually use the full rank budget on real data, and which do not? We propose SVD-Attention, a post-hoc method that decomposes the per-head interaction matrix $M_h$ and scores every singular mode by both its spectral magnitude and its activation variance across tokens on a small calibration set. The score keeps the modes the head can amplify and that real data actually activates, and discards the rest; the resulting factorization is exact for the retained modes and needs no finetuning. Across seven pretrained models and five task types, the diagnostic finds a task-dependent pattern: redundancy sits in the early to middle layers for sentiment and image classification and for generation, and in the late layers for dense prediction and extractive question answering. It is also predictive: truncating the layers it flags costs at most $1.75$ F1, while truncating the same number of layers elsewhere in the same model costs up to $50$ F1. SVD-Attention is an analysis tool rather than a compression method: acting on it reduces inference FLOPs by $0.8$-$1.5\%$ on its own and by $8$-$11\%$ when composed with weight pruning, with $0$-$4\%$ change in task quality.