Organizations: AGI Lab, Westlake University · Eindhoven University of Technology · Jinan University · IHPC, Agency for Science, Technology and Research, Singapore · CFAR, Agency for Science, Technology and Research, Singapore
Dataset Distillation aims to synthesize compact datasets that can approximate the training efficacy of large-scale real datasets, offering an efficient solution to the increasing computational demands of modern deep learning. Recently, diffusion-based dataset distillation methods have shown great promise by leveraging the strong generative capacity of diffusion models to produce diverse and structurally consistent samples. However, a fundamental goal misalignment persists: diffusion models are optimized for generative likelihood rather than discriminative utility, resulting in over-concentration in high-density regions and inadequate coverage of boundary samples crucial for classification. To address this issue, we propose two complementary strategies. Inversion-Matching (IM) introduces an inversion-guided fine-tuning process that aligns denoising trajectories with their inversion counterparts, broadening distributional coverage and enhancing diversity. Selective Subgroup Sampling(S^3) is a training-free sampling mechanism that improves inter-class separability by selecting synthetic subsets that are both representative and distinctive. Extensive experiments demonstrate that our approach significantly enhances the discriminative quality and generalization of distilled datasets, achieving state-of-the-art performance among diffusion-based methods.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: t-SNE visualization of feature distributions for different distilled datasets. The blue density map represents the feature distribution of the original dataset. The purple squares correspond to samples generated by the DiT [ 23 ] , the orange dots correspond to Minimax [ 8 ] , and the red stars indicate samples produced by our ImS 3 . Our method covers a broader area of the feature space, indicating improved distribu- tional coverage.
Figure 2: Overview of the proposed ImS 3 framework. (a) IM fine-tuning expands distribution coverage by aligning denoised and inverted latents through the IM loss LIM . (b) S 3 enhances discriminative diversity during sampling by selecting representative subgroups whose centroids are close to real data centroids while maintaining inter-class separation, optimized via LS3 . ri denotes the centroid of real samples from the i -th class, while ci,gi represents the centroid of the gi -th candidate subgroup synthesized by the diffusion model for the same class. The selected optimal subgroup centroid ci,gi∗ strikes the best balance between representativeness to the real class distribution and distinctiveness from other classes.
IPC (Ratio)
Model
Random
K-Center [ 28 ]
Herding [ 41 ]
DiT [ 23 ]
Minimax [ 8 ]
DM [ 47 ]
IDC-1 [ 14 ]
D 4 M [ 32 ]
D3HR [ 50 ]
DDVLCP [ 53 ]
ImS 3 (Ours)
Full
10 (0.8%)
ConvNet-6
24.3 ± 1.1
19.4 ± 0.9
26.7 ± 0.5
34.2 ± 1.1
34.1 ± 0.4
26.9 ± 1.2
33.3 ± 1.1
29.4 ± 0.9
–
34.8 ± 2.4
35.6 ± 1.8
86.4 ± 0.2
ResNetAP-10
29.4 ± 0.8
22.1 ± 0.1
32.0 ± 0.3
34.7 ± 0.5
35.7 ± 0.3
30.3 ± 1.2
39.1 ± 0.5
33.2 ± 2.1
40.7 ± 1.0
39.5 ± 1.5
41.8 ± 0.3
87.5 ± 0.5
ResNet-18
27.7 ± 0.9
21.1 ± 0.4
30.2 ± 1.2
34.7 ± 0.4
37.6 ± 0.9
33.4 ± 0.7
37.3 ± 0.2
32.3 ± 1.2
39.6 ± 1.0
39.9 ± 2.6
41.3 ± 1.1
89.3 ± 1.2
20 (1.6%)
ConvNet-6
29.1 ± 0.7
21.5 ± 0.8
29.5 ± 0.3
36.1 ± 0.8
37.9 ± 0.2
29.9 ± 1.0
35.5 ± 0.8
34.0 ± 2.3
–
37.9 ± 1.9
39.4 ± 0.5
86.4 ± 0.2
ResNetAP-10
32.7 ± 0.4
25.1 ± 0.7
34.9 ± 0.1
41.1 ± 0.8
43.3 ± 0.3
35.2 ± 0.6
43.4 ± 0.3
40.1 ± 1.6
–
44.5 ± 2.2
45.8 ± 1.2
87.5 ± 0.5
ResNet-18
29.7 ± 0.5
23.6 ± 0.3
32.2 ± 0.6
40.5 ± 0.5
40.9 ± 0.6
29.8 ± 1.7
38.6 ± 0.2
38.4 ± 1.1
–
44.5 ± 2.0
44.9 ± 1.6
89.3 ± 1.2
Table 1: Comparison of SOTA dataset distillation methods on ImageWoof under various IPC and backbone settings. The best results are marked as bold, and the second are underlined.
IPC
Random
DiT [ 23 ]
Minimax [ 8 ]
D 4 M [ 32 ]
ImS 3 (Ours)
10
54.2 ± 1.6
59.1 ± 0.7
58.6 ± 0.4
60.9 ± 1.7
62.9 ± 1.2
20
63.5 ± 0.5
64.8 ± 1.2
70.6 ± 0.3
66.3 ± 1.3
71.6 ± 0.7
50
76.1 ± 1.1
73.3 ± 0.9
83.7 ± 0.4
77.7 ± 1.1
84.2 ± 1.0
Table 2: Comparison on ImageNette under different IPC settings. All the results are obtained on ResNetAP-10. The best results are marked as bold and the second are underlined.
IPC
Random
SRe 2 L [ 45 ]
DiT [ 23 ]
RDED [ 33 ]
Minimax [ 14 ]
ImS 3 (Ours)
1
12.7 ± 0.5
17.2 ± 1.2
26.7 ± 1.4
15.9 ± 0.9
22.4 ± 0.6
28.5 ± 2.0
10
48.1 ± 0.8
23.6 ± 2.0
54.1 ± 0.4
33.8 ± 2.0
51.9 ± 1.4
56.2 ± 0.6
50
68.1 ± 0.7
45.7 ± 1.3
76.4 ± 0.3
78.3 ± 0.9
78.3 ± 0.2
78.5 ± 1.5
Table 3: Comparison on ImageIDC under different IPC settings. All the results are obtained on ResNet-18. The best results are marked as bold, and the second are underlined.
Figure 3: Heatmap of classification accuracy under different combinations of α and β . The heatmap shows that balanced values of α and β yield the best performance.
Method
ImageWoof
ImageNette
IPC = 10
IPC = 50
IPC = 10
IPC = 50
DiT [ 23 ]
34.7 ± 0.5
49.3 ± 0.2
58.9 ± 1.2
82.9 ± 0.1
+ IM
37.3 ± 0.1
53.5 ± 0.5
60.0 ± 0.9
81.5 ± 0.5
+ S 3
40.9 ± 0.2
54.9 ± 0.5
62.2 ± 1.9
81.3 ± 1.2
+ ImS 3
41.8 ± 0.3
61.0 ± 0.7
62.9 ± 1.2
84.2 ± 1.0
Table 4: Ablation study of IM and S 3 under IPC = 10 and 50. Results on ImageWoof are obtained using ResNetAP-10, while results on ImageNette are obtained using ResNet-18. The best results are marked as bold.
Figure 4: Analysis of real-images usage from original dataset used to compute reference centroids in Eq. 8 . Moderate sample counts provide stable and reliable centroids for subgroup selection, while too few samples introduce noise and degrade selection quality.
IPC
Model
Random
Herding [ 41 ]
IDC-1 [ 14 ]
Minimax [ 14 ]
MGD 3 [ 3 ]
ImS 3 (Ours)
10
ConvNet-6
17.0 ± 0.3
17.2 ± 0.3
24.3 ± 0.5
22.3 ± 0.5
23.4 ± 0.9
24.3 ± 1.1
ResNetAP-10
19.1 ± 0.4
19.8 ± 0.3
25.7 ± 0.1
24.8 ± 0.2
25.8 ± 0.5
28.4 ± 0.2
ResNet-18
17.5 ± 0.5
16.1 ± 0.2
25.1 ± 0.2
22.5 ± 0.3
23.6 ± 0.4
28.3 ± 0.3
20
ConvNet-6
24.8 ± 0.2
24.3 ± 0.4
28.8 ± 0.3
29.3 ± 0.4
30.6 ± 0.4
30.7 ± 0.4
ResNetAP-10
26.7 ± 0.5
27.6 ± 0.1
29.9 ± 0.2
32.3 ± 0.1
33.9 ± 1.1
34.8 ± 0.2
ResNet-18
25.5 ± 0.3
24.7 ± 0.1
30.2 ± 0.2
31.2 ± 0.1
32.6 ± 0.4
36.3 ± 0.2
Table 5: Performance comparison on ImageNet-100 under different IPC and backbone settings. Results are Top-1 accuracy.
Backbone
IPC
SRe 2 L [ 45 ]
Minimax [ 8 ]
RDED [ 33 ]
CaO 2 [ 37 ]
ImS 3 (Ours)
ResNet-18
10
20.2 ± 0.2
40.1 ± 1.0
38.5 ± 2.1
45.6 ± 1.4
45.9 ± 1.3
50
23.3 ± 0.3
67.0 ± 1.8
68.5 ± 0.7
68.9 ± 1.1
71.2 ± 1.3
ResNet-50
10
17.3 ± 1.7
37.3 ± 1.1
29.9 ± 2.2
40.1 ± 0.1
42.7 ± 1.8
50
24.8 ± 0.7
64.3 ± 0.9
67.8 ± 0.3
68.2 ± 1.1
68.3 ± 0.2
ResNet-101
10
17.7 ± 0.9
34.2 ± 1.7
31.3 ± 1.3
36.5 ± 1.4
38.2 ± 1.6
50
21.2 ± 0.2
62.7 ± 1.6
59.1 ± 0.7
63.1 ± 1.3
66.1 ± 1.8
Table 6: Performance comparison under different IPC and backbone settings on ImageWoof. Best results in each setting are marked as bold.
Loss Type
ImageWoof
ImageNette
IPC = 10
IPC = 50
IPC = 10
IPC = 50
L1
38.7 ± 0.2
58.1 ± 0.2
62.6 ± 0.9
81.7 ± 0.7
L2
39.0 ± 0.2
58.1 ± 0.1
62.7 ± 1.0
82.8 ± 0.7
1−σ
41.8 ± 0.3
60.1 ± 0.7
62.9 ± 1.2
84.2 ± 1.0
Table 7: Ablation study of different similarity losses used in the IM on ImageWoof and ImageNette under IPC = 10 and 50. Results are reported as top-1 accuracy.
Figure 5: Validation accuracy under different matching strengths. Performance of our method across a range of matching coefficients λIM for IPC = 10, 20, and 50. Each curve corresponds to a fixed IPC, and shaded regions denote performance variability across runs.
Figure 6: Effect of subgroup pool size G under different IPC settings on ImageWoof. A moderate increase in G provides richer intra-class variation and improves selection quality, especially in low-IPC regimes. However, excessively large pools introduce redundant or noisy candidates, which destabilizes selection and leads to degraded performance.
IPC
Res18
Res50
Res101
Efficient
CLIP
10
41.8 ± 0.3
39.6 ± 0.3
38.8 ± 0.2
39.5 ± 0.2
38.1 ± 0.5
20
45.8 ± 1.2
45.7 ± 0.3
45.0 ± 0.2
45.8 ± 0.3
44.3 ± 0.2
Table 8: Ablation study on feature extractors for centroid selection on ImageWoof. Top-1 accuracy (%).
DiT
Minimax
MGD3
IMS 3
Fine-tuning
-
32min
-
19.5min
Sampling
1.5min
1.5min
21min
7min
Total
1.5min
33.5min
21min
26.5min
Table 9: Runtime comparison on ImageWoof (IPC=10).
DiT
Minimax
CaO 2
IMS 3
IPC=10
36.6 ± 0.2
33.3 ± 0.2
37.5 ± 0.3
37.9 ± 0.2
IPC=50
52.5 ± 0.2
51.4 ± 0.5
53.8 ± 0.6
59.6 ± 0.3
Table 10: 512 × 512 results on ImageWoof.
Model
Minimax
MGD3
IMS 3
IPC=10
EfficientNet
31.3 ± 0.7
32.3 ± 0.3
34.2 ± 0.2
ViT
18.9 ± 0.0
17.7 ± 0.2
20.0 ± 0.0
IPC=50
EfficientNet
46.3 ± 1.0
49.3 ± 0.5
51.7 ± 0.4
ViT
18.8 ± 0.3
17.6 ± 0.1
19.9 ± 0.5
Table 11: Cross-architecture evaluation on ImageWoof.
SRe 2 L
RDED
Minimax
MGD3
IMS 3
Top-1 Acc.
21.3 ± 0.6
42.0 ± 0.1
44.3 ± 0.5
45.5 ± 0.1
45.6 ± 0.3
Table 12: ImageNet-1K results (IPC=10).
Figure 7: Feature-space visualization of distilled samples.
DiT
Minimax
IMS Gen3
IMS Real3
IPC=10
34.7 ± 0.5
35.7 ± 0.3
39.6 ± 0.4
41.8 ± 0.3
IPC=50
49.3 ± 0.2
54.4 ± 0.6
55.5 ± 0.3
57.3 ± 0.5
Table 13: Gen-data centroid results on ImageWoof
Figure 8: t-SNE visualization of distilled samples on ImageNet-100 and ImageWoof. ImS 3 produces tighter intra-class clusters and clearer inter-class separation, whereas MinimaxDiffusion exhibits more dispersed and overlapping structures.
Figure 9: Comparison between samples selected by Minimax [ 8 ] (left) and generated by the proposed ImS 3 (right) for ImageWoof. The class names are marked at the left of each row.
Figure 10: Comparison between samples selected by Minimax [ 8 ] (left) and generated by the proposed ImS 3 (right) for ImageNette. The class names are marked at the left of each row.
Figure 11: Comparison between samples selected by Minimax [ 8 ] (left) and generated by the proposed ImS 3 (right) for ImageNet-100 classes 0-9. The class names are marked at the left of each row.
Figure 12: Comparison between samples selected by Minimax [ 8 ] (left) and generated by the proposed ImS 3 (right) for ImageNet-100 classes 10-19. The class names are marked at the left of each row.
Figure 13: Comparison between samples selected by Minimax [ 8 ] (left) and generated by the proposed ImS 3 (right) for ImageNet-100 classes 20-29. The class names are marked at the left of each row.
Figure 14: Comparison between samples selected by Minimax [ 8 ] (left) and generated by the proposed ImS 3 (right) for ImageNet-100 classes 30-39. The class names are marked at the left of each row.
Figure 15: Comparison between samples selected by Minimax [ 8 ] (left) and generated by the proposed ImS 3 (right) for ImageNet-100 classes 40-49. The class names are marked at the left of each row.
Figure 16: Comparison between samples selected by Minimax [ 8 ] (left) and generated by the proposed ImS 3 (right) for ImageNet-100 classes 50-59. The class names are marked at the left of each row.
Figure 17: Comparison between samples selected by Minimax [ 8 ] (left) and generated by the proposed ImS 3 (right) for ImageNet-100 classes 60-69. The class names are marked at the left of each row.
Figure 18: Comparison between samples selected by Minimax [ 8 ] (left) and generated by the proposed ImS 3 (right) for ImageNet-100 classes 70-79. The class names are marked at the left of each row.
Figure 19: Comparison between samples selected by Minimax [ 8 ] (left) and generated by the proposed ImS 3 (right) for ImageNet-100 classes 80-89. The class names are marked at the left of each row.
Figure 20: Comparison between samples selected by Minimax [ 8 ] (left) and generated by the proposed ImS 3 (right) for ImageNet-100 classes 90-99. The class names are marked at the left of each row.
Dataset distillation aims to synthesize compact datasets that can approximate the performance of full-data training while significantly reducing computational and storage costs. However, diffusion-based distillation methods often struggle to preserve structural coherence and generalization, especially in visually complex domains. This issue often stems from latent prototypes that are weakly aligned with class-discriminative regions and contaminated by irrelevant background, thereby degrading generation quality and generalization. To address this limitation, we propose a saliency-driven distillation framework that constructs class-discriminative latent prototypes to enhance representativeness and generalization. The framework proceeds in two stages: (1) ensemble Grad-CAM++ saliency is used to construct prototypes emphasizing class-discriminative regions, and (2) hard-prototype refinement is then applied to construct challenging yet class-consistent prototypes, thereby enhancing discriminability and diversity. Importantly, the diffusion backbones (e.g., LDM and DiT) remain frozen; only lightweight classifiers used for saliency extraction are trained. Extensive experiments across multiple benchmarks demonstrate consistent performance improvements over strong baselines. Code will be released.
Yawen Zou, Wenqi Cai, Guang Li +3
University of Toyama · Hokkaido University · University of Fukui
Training machine learning models on massive datasets is expensive and time-consuming. Dataset distillation addresses this by creating a small synthetic dataset that achieves the same performance as the full dataset. Recent methods use diffusion models to generate distilled data, either by promoting diversity or matching training gradients. However, existing approaches produce redundant training signals, where samples convey overlapping information. Empirically, disjoint subsets of distilled datasets capture 80-90% overlapping signals. This redundancy stems from optimizing visual diversity or average training dynamics without accounting for similarity across samples, leading to datasets where multiple samples share similar information rather than complementary knowledge. We propose learnability-driven dataset distillation, which constructs synthetic datasets incrementally through successive stages. Starting from a small set, we train a model and generate new samples guided by learnability scores that identify what the current model can learn from, creating an adaptive curriculum. We introduce Learnability-Guided Diffusion (LGD), which balances training utility for the current model with validity under a reference model to generate curriculum-aligned samples. Our approach reduces redundancy by 39.1%, promotes specialization across training stages, and achieves state-of-the-art results on ImageNet-1K (60.1%), ImageNette (87.2%), and ImageWoof (72.9%). Our code is available on our project page https://jachansantiago.github.io/learnability-guided-distillation/.
Jeffrey A. Chan-Santiago, Mubarak Shah
Institute of Artificial Intelligence, University of Central Florida
Dataset distillation provides an effective approach to reduce memory and computational costs by optimizing a compact dataset that achieves performance comparable to the full original. However, for large-scale datasets and complex deep networks (e.g., ImageNet-1K with ResNet-101), the vast optimization space hinders distillation effectiveness, limiting practical applications. Recent methods leverage pre-trained diffusion models to directly generate informative images, thereby bypassing pixel-level optimization and achieving promising results. Nonetheless, these approaches often suffer from distribution shifts between the pre-trained diffusion prior and target datasets, as well as the need for multiple distillation steps under varying settings. To overcome these challenges, we propose a novel framework that is orthogonal to existing diffusion-based distillation techniques by utilizing the diffusion prior for patch selection rather than generation. Our method predicts noise from the diffusion model conditioned on input images and optional text prompts (with or without label information), and computes the associated loss for each image-patch pair. Based on the loss differences, we identify distinctive regions within the original images. Furthermore, we apply intra-class clustering and ranking on the selected patches to enforce diversity constraints. This streamlined pipeline enables a one-step distillation process. Extensive experiments demonstrate that our approach consistently outperforms state-of-the-art methods across various metrics and settings.
Xinhao Zhong, Shuoyang Sun, Zhaoyang Xu +4
Harbin Institute of Technology, Shenzhen · Shanghai Jiao Tong University