Tabular data is the primary data format in industrial relational databases, underpinning modern data analytics and decision-making. However, the increasing scale of tabular data poses significant computational and storage challenges to learning-based analytical systems. This highlights the need for data-efficient learning, which enables effective model training and generalization using substantially fewer samples. Dataset condensation (DC) has emerged as a promising data-centric paradigm that synthesizes small yet informative datasets to preserve data utility while reducing storage and training costs. However, existing DC methods are computationally intensive due to reliance on complex gradient-based optimization. Moreover, they often overlook key characteristics of tabular data, such as heterogeneous features and class imbalance. To address these limitations, we introduce C2TC (Class-Adaptive Clustering for Tabular Condensation), the first training-free tabular dataset condensation framework that jointly optimizes class allocation and feature representation, enabling efficient and scalable condensation. Specifically, we reformulate the dataset condensation objective into a novel class-adaptive cluster allocation problem (CCAP), which eliminates costly training and integrates adaptive label allocation to handle class imbalance. To solve the NP-hard CCAP, we develop HFILS, a heuristic local search that alternates between soft allocation and class-wise clustering to efficiently obtain high-quality solutions. Moreover, a hybrid categorical feature encoding (HCFE) is proposed for semantics-preserving clustering of heterogeneous discrete attributes. Extensive experiments on 10 real-world datasets demonstrate that C2TC improves efficiency by at least 2 orders of magnitude over state-of-the-art baselines, while achieving superior downstream performance.
Figures & tables
Fig. 1 : Comparison of label allocation strategies.
Fig. 2 : Overall framework of C2TC .
Dataset
Size
#Num
#Cat
MinMaxCF
#Classes
Electricity (EL)
38,474
6
1
1.00
2
Adult (AD)
48,842
6
8
0.31
2
Jannis (JA)
83,733
54
0
0.04
4
Diabetes130US (DA)
101,766
13
36
0.21
3
Road Safety (RS)
111,762
29
3
1.00
2
Epsilon (EP)
500,000
2,000
0
1.00
2
TABLE I : The statistics of datasets. Num and Cat stands for numerical and categorical features, respectively. MinMaxCF denotes the ratio of min–max class frequency [ 64 ] .
Dataset
r
Random
Herding
K-Center
DM
GM
MTT
C2TC
Whole Dataset
Acc
Macro-F1
Acc
Macro-F1
Acc
Macro-F1
Acc
Macro-F1
Acc
Macro-F1
Acc
Macro-F1
Acc
Macro-F1
Acc
Macro-F1
EL
1%
57.0 ± 2.5
56.0 ± 3.4
54.1 ± 0.1
54.1 ± 0.1
53.8 ± 1.5
48.5 ± 5.6
57.4 ± 2.0
56.4 ± 3.0
50.6 ± 1.3
37.0 ± 7.3
58.0 ± 2.2
57.1 ± 2.9
66.1 ± 0.5
65.9 ± 0.5
76.5 ± 0.9
76.4 ± 0.9
0.1%
53.5 ± 2.3
53.0 ± 2.5
54.2 ± 0.1
54.2 ± 0.1
50.6 ± 3.7
48.4 ± 4.3
51.6 ± 2.4
51.0 ± 2.4
50.3 ± 2.7
44.3 ± 7.2
52.6 ± 3.4
51.9 ± 3.4
64.5 ± 0.5
63.5 ± 0.6
0.01%
51.2 ± 1.7
48.7 ± 4.5
53.7 ± 0.9
51.8 ± 4.7
53.7 ± 0.9
51.8 ± 4.7
50.9 ± 2.3
47.2 ± 3.2
50.3 ± 1.0
34.5 ± 4.3
51.0 ± 2.1
47.0 ± 3.7
62.9 ± 0.2
60.4 ± 2.7
AD
1%
77.2 ± 1.1
56.3 ± 6.1
72.9 ± 1.8
65.3 ± 1.1
76.1 ± 0.0
43.2 ± 0.0
78.5 ± 0.6
61.3 ± 3.4
76.1 ± 0.0
43.2 ± 0.0
78.5 ± 0.5
61.3 ± 2.9
81.7 ± 0.4
74.9 ± 0.7
85.5 ± 0.1
78.4 ± 0.4
0.1%
75.7 ± 1.3
56.3 ± 5.8
67.8 ± 2.7
61.4 ± 1.0
76.0 ± 0.1
43.2 ± 0.0
76.3 ± 1.7
55.4 ± 7.6
76.1 ± 0.0
43.2 ± 0.0
76.2 ± 1.8
56.0 ± 7.6
81.5 ± 0.6
70.8 ± 1.1
TABLE II : Overall Performance Comparison. Whole Dataset denotes training on the full dataset and serves as an approximate upper bound. Bold indicates the best performance and underline means the runner-up.
Dataset
Method
MLP-Based
Transformer-Based
Avg.
MLP
MLP_PLR
RealMLP
FT_T
TabNet
TabR
EL
Random
53.5
55.8
52.3
53.9
50.3
52.2
53.0
DM
51.6
55.1
55.1
57.2
49.3
53.0
53.6
GM
50.3
50.6
50.3
50.6
50.3
50.6
50.5
MTT
52.6
57.0
52.7
56.0
51.1
53.9
53.9
C2TC
64.5
67.5
62.8
64.5
51.0
61.3
62.0
TABLE III : Generalization of DC methods across deep tabular learning models. Avg. stands for the average test accuracy of MLP, MLP_PLR, RealMLP, FT_T, TabNet, and TabR. Results for DM, GM, and MTT on EP, and GM on MI, are omitted as they fail to scale to these datasets due to time or memory constraints. All results are reported in terms of accuracy.
Fig. 3 : Condensation time comparison.
Fig. 4 : Condensation time by varying N and F .
Fig. 5 : Training time on condensed vs. whole datasets.
Strategy
EL
AD
EP
CO
MI
Acc
MF1
Acc
MF1
Acc
MF1
Acc
MF1
Acc
MF1
Ratio
63.0
62.9
80.4
69.7
69.9
69.0
65.6
33.1
53.5
20.9
FIPC
63.0
62.9
74.2
70.7
69.9
69.0
47.3
40.5
34.2
20.8
C2TC
64.5
63.5
81.5
70.8
75.2
74.8
69.6
46.4
53.6
21.5
TABLE IV : Comparison of label allocation strategies by Accuracy (Acc) and Macro-F1 (MF1).
Modules
Metrics
AD
JA
DA
AI
CO
MI
w/o Soft Step Size
Acc
74.5
50.9
36.8
–
60.9
46.6
w/o Soft Allocation
Acc
–
51.7
50.5
–
58.3
49.8
C2TC
Acc
81.5
52.8
51.8
61.5
69.6
53.6
w/o Scale Factor
Macro-F1
69.0
29.2
32.6
–
35.8
17.0
C2TC
Macro-F1
70.8
35.3
34.4
58.4
46.4
21.5
TABLE V : Ablation study of C2TC modules.
Fig. 6 : Parameter sensitivity analysis of γ and l .
Appendix figures & tables3 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Dataset
C 2 TC vs. Herding
C 2 TC vs. MTT
Acc p -val
MF1 p -val
Acc p -val
MF1 p -val
EL
6.90 × 10 -33
7.34 × 10 -30
3.78 × 10 -15
8.79 × 10 -15
AD
4.01 × 10 -17
3.20 × 10 -20
5.37 × 10 -13
5.13 × 10 -10
JA
4.76 × 10 -1
1.44 × 10 -6
3.75 × 10 -3
2.48 × 10 -2
DA
4.45 × 10 -9
1.05 × 10 -13
9.07 × 10 -8
1.78 × 10 -12
RS
2.28 × 10 -2
5.56 × 10 -2
2.18 × 10 -2
3.60 × 10 -2
Appendix
TABLE VI : Paired t-test results ( p -values) comparing C2TC against competitive baselines (Herding and MTT). Bold values indicate statistical significance ( p<0.05 ). Results for MTT on EP are omitted due to OOT.
Dataset
Label
One-hot + PCA
Target
HCFE
Acc
MF1
Acc
MF1
Acc
MF1
Acc
MF1
AD
67.7
62.9
74.4
70.0
78.8
69.9
81.5
70.8
DA
50.2
24.3
51.3
30.8
47.1
33.5
51.8
34.4
AI
53.1
52.0
61.0
56.0
59.1
58.2
61.5
58.4
Appendix
TABLE VII : Comparison of categorical feature encoding strategies for data condensation.
Department of Computer Science, Hong Kong Baptist University, Hong Kong, China · Department of Computer Science, Guangdong University of Technology, Guangzhou, China