Multimodal dataset distillation aims to construct compact synthetic datasets that enable efficient compression and knowledge transfer from large-scale image-text data. However, existing approaches often fail to capture the complex, dynamically evolving knowledge embedded in the later training stages of teacher models. This limitation leads to degraded student performance and compromises the quality of the distilled data. To address critical challenges such as pronounced cross-stage performance gaps and unstable teacher trajectories, we propose Phased Teacher Model with Shortcut Trajectory (PTM-ST) -- a novel phased distillation framework. PTM-ST leverages stage-aware teacher modeling and a shortcut-based trajectory construction strategy to accurately fit the teacher's learning dynamics across distinct training phases. This enhances both the stability and expressiveness of the distillation process. Through theoretical analysis and comprehensive experiments, we show that PTM-ST significantly mitigates optimization oscillations and inter-phase knowledge gaps, while also reducing storage overhead. Our method consistently surpasses state-of-the-art baselines on Flickr30k and COCO, achieving up to 13.5% absolute improvement and an average gain of 9.53% on Flickr30k. Code: https://github.com/Previsior/PTM-ST.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: PTM-ST has achieved far superior performance than other selection or distillation methods in different metrics on Flickr30k.
Figure 2: (a) shows that using a late-stage, high-performing teacher during distillation leads to a decline in student performance. (b) shows the directions of different matching range gradients (after PCA dimensionality reduction).
Figure 3: (a) shows the conventional single-stage training with a fixed teacher model and uniform data use. In contrast, (b) depicts our Phased Teacher Model (PTM), which employs different teacher models across multiple training stages to distill knowledge to specific data subsets. (c) illustrates the aggregation of all distilled subsets for final student evaluation. Additionally, (d) presents our Shortcut Trajectory (ST) strategy that dynamically generates stage-adaptive teacher models, improving distillation effectiveness and robustness.
Figure 4: Gradient cosine similarity on the synthetic dataset across different epochs for the original and shortcut trajectories.
Pairs
Ratio
Metric
Core-set Selection
Dataset Distillation
RAND
HERD
K-CENT
FORGET
MTT-VL 2 2 2 Intercepted from the original paper.
LoRS 3 3 3 Reproduced by ourselves.
EDGE 2 2 2 Intercepted from the original paper.
PTM-ST
△
100
0.3%
IR@1
1.0
0.7
0.7
0.7
4.7 ± 0.2
7.8 ± 0.2
-
9.6 ± 0.3
+ 1.8
IR@5
4.0
2.8
3.1
2.4
15.7 ± 0.5
24.4 ± 0.3
-
28.4 ± 0.5
+ 4.0
IR@10
6.5
5.3
6.1
5.6
24.6 ± 1.0
35.5 ± 0.4
-
41.5 ± 0.5
+ 6.0
TR@1
1.3
1.1
0.6
1.2
9.9 ± 0.3
10.2 ± 0.3
-
14.4 ± 0.4
+ 4.2
TR@5
5.9
4.7
4.2
4.2
28.3 ± 0.5
30.9 ± 0.8
-
38.6 ± 0.8
+ 7.7
Table 1: Results on Flickr30k. The metrics for training model on the full dataset are IR@1=27.3, IR@5=57.1, IR@10=69.7; TR@1=33.9, TR@5=65.1, TR@10=75.2.
Pairs
Ratio
Metric
Core-set Selection
Dataset Distillation
RAND
HERD
K-CENT
FORGET
MTT-VL 2 2 2 Intercepted from the original paper.
LoRS 3 3 3 Reproduced by ourselves.
EDGE 2 2 2 Intercepted from the original paper.
PTM-ST
△
100
0.8‰
IR@1
0.3
0.5
0.4
0.3
1.3 ± 0.1
1.7 ± 0.1
-
2.3 ± 0.1
+ 0.6
IR@5
1.3
1.4
1.4
1.5
5.4 ± 0.3
6.9 ± 0.2
-
9.0 ± 0.1
+ 2.1
IR@10
2.7
3.5
2.5
2.5
9.5 ± 0.5
11.9 ± 0.3
-
15.6 ± 0.3
+ 3.7
TR@1
0.8
0.8
1.4
0.7
2.5 ± 0.3
3.0 ± 0.3
-
4.1 ± 0.2
+ 1.1
TR@5
3.0
2.1
3.7
2.6
10.0 ± 0.5
11.0 ± 0.2
-
13.4 ± 0.2
+ 2.4
Table 2: Results on the COCO dataset. The metrics for training model on the full dataset are IR@1=16.9, IR@5=41.9, IR@10=55.9; TR@1=19.6, TR@5=45.6, TR@10=59.5.
Pairs
LoRS
Ours
IR@1
IR@5
IR@10
TR@1
TR@5
TR@10
IR@1
IR@5
IR@10
TR@1
TR@5
TR@10
100
1.2
4.6
7.7
1.7
6.9
11.4
2.3
8.2
13.2
2.9
10.0
15.9
200
1.4
5.3
8.7
2.4
8.5
13.6
2.7
9.7
15.8
3.7
11.9
18.4
500
1.7
6.2
10.1
2.5
8.7
13.8
3.3
11.4
17.9
4.1
13.2
19.9
Table 3: Results on LLaVA-cc3m dataset. The metrics for training model on the full dataset are IR@1=9.3, IR@5=25.9, IR@10=36.5; TR@1=9.8, TR@5=26.4, TR@10=37.3.
No.
Model
Flickr IR@K
Flickr TR@K
COCO IR@K
COCO TR@K
1
5
10
1
5
10
1
5
10
1
5
10
(1)
BASE (N/A)
12.2
33.0
45.7
16.2
39.4
54.0
3.4
11.7
19.1
4.2
13.8
20.8
(2)
EMA
12.9
33.7
46.3
16.2
40.6
54.3
3.5
12.3
19.8
4.0
13.6
20.8
(3)
PTM
13.4
35.2
48.1
19.6
43.2
55.5
4.2
14.2
22.6
4.8
15.1
23.4
(4)
ST
14.2
37.8
50.8
19.5
45.1
59.3
4.9
15.9
24.7
4.8
15.1
23.8
(5)
PTM + EMA
14.3
37.7
50.7
18.8
45.0
58.5
4.5
14.8
23.1
4.8
15.7
24.3
Table 4: Various ablation studies with 500 pairs on Flickr30k and COCO.
Methods
VQA on COCO-QA
ImageNet-50 Classification
ACC@1
ACC@5
ACC@10
ACC@1
ACC@5
ACC@10
LoRS
10.8
33.0
39.9
18.6
42.1
55.9
Ours
16.3
38.9
47.4
22.1
52.7
67.9
Table 5: Performance on additional downstream tasks.
Dataset
Method
IR@1
IR@5
IR@10
TR@1
TR@5
TR@10
Flickr30k
LoRS
9.8
29.0
41.6
14.9
39.8
53.5
EDGE
9.9
28.2
40.5
14.5
38.3
51.7
Ours
17.5
42.8
56.3
23.8
53.6
67.2
COCO
LoRS
2.5
9.9
16.6
4.2
15.2
24.1
EDGE
2.8
9.8
16.2
3.9
13.0
21.0
Ours
7.0
21.8
32.3
6.8
20.9
30.8
Table 6: Performance comparison on Flickr30k and COCO with 1000 pairs.
Figure 5: Examples of initial (left) and synthetic (right) image-text pairs.
Appendix figures & tables15 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Dataset
Model
2
4
6
8
10
COCO
Teacher
35.4
39.0
40.4
41.9
42.8
Student
11.4
7.9
6.9
5.7
5.1
Flickr30K
Teacher
45.6
48.9
51.2
53.6
55.3
Student
33.8
35.1
33.5
31.4
30.1
Appendix
Table 7: Performance of teacher and student models at different epochs on COCO and Flickr30K.
Pairs
Ratio
Metric
Dataset Distillation
MTT-VL 1 1 1 Intercepted from the original paper.
LoRS 2 2 2 Reproduced by ourselves.
DATM 2 2 2 Reproduced by ourselves.
PTM-ST
100
0.8‰
IR@1
1.3 ± 0.1
1.7 ± 0.1
1.2 ± 0.1
2.3 ± 0.1
IR@5
5.4 ± 0.3
6.9 ± 0.2
5.1 ± 0.2
9.0 ± 0.1
IR@10
9.5 ± 0.5
11.9 ± 0.3
8.9 ± 0.4
15.6 ± 0.3
TR@1
2.5 ± 0.3
3.0 ± 0.3
2.5 ± 0.3
4.1 ± 0.2
TR@5
10.0 ± 0.5
11.0 ± 0.2
9.1 ± 0.3
13.4 ± 0.2
Appendix
Table 8: Results on the COCO dataset. The metrics for training the model on the full dataset are IR@1=16.9, IR@5=41.9, IR@10=55.9; TR@1=19.6, TR@5=45.6, TR@10=59.5.
Figure 6: (a) shows the gradients of the teacher model on the synthetic dataset across different epochs. (b) illustrates the parameter differences between various training trajectories of the teacher model. (c) present a visualization of the new teacher model constructed using our proposed method.
Parameter
Flickr30k
COCO
syn_steps
8
8
expert_epochs
1
1
lr_img
1000
1000
lr_txt
1000
1000
lr_lr
1e-2
1e-2
lr_teacher_img
0.1
0.1
Appendix
Table 9: Hyper-parameters for the distillation run.
Table 16
Flickr-30K
MS-COCO
100
200
500
1000
100
200
500
1000
subset_num / P
1
2
2
3
1
2
2
3
syn_steps / t
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
expert_epochs / ΔT
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
min_start_epoch / Tp−
0
0, 1
0, 1
0, 1, 2
0
0, 1
2
0, 1, 2
max_start_epoch / Tp+
2
2, 3
2, 3
3, 4, 5
2
2, 3
2
2, 3, 4
Appendix
Table 12: Hyper-parameter settings for distillation.
Pairs
Setting
IR@1
IR@5
IR@10
TR@1
TR@5
TR@10
Mean
200
PTM w/o shift
11.8
33.2
46.3
18.1
44.3
59.0
35.5
ST w/o shift
11.6
33.3
47.0
18.5
43.5
57.8
35.3
full
12.5
34.7
48.5
19.3
45.9
58.9
36.6
500
PTM w/o shift
15.2
39.6
53.1
21.6
48.6
62.9
40.2
ST w/o shift
15.3
39.9
53.5
21.1
49.6
63.1
40.4
full
16.0
40.5
54.0
22.2
51.1
64.6
41.4
Appendix
Table 13: Ablation on whether to shift under different data sizes.
Pairs
Interpolation endpoint
IR@1
IR@5
IR@10
TR@1
TR@5
TR@10
Mean
100
6
9.6
28.4
41.5
14.4
38.6
52.7
30.9
8
8.4
26.6
39.7
15.4
39.9
54.6
30.8
10
8.8
26.8
39.7
14.9
39.6
53.6
30.6
200
4, 6
11.7
33.2
46.3
18.5
43.5
58.6
35.3
6, 8
12.5
34.7
48.5
19.3
45.9
58.9
36.6
8, 10
11.2
32.3
45.4
18.1
46.4
60.2
35.6
Appendix
Table 14: Comparison of distillation results at different interpolation endpoints.
Method
IR@1
IR@5
IR@10
TR@1
TR@5
TR@10
Mean
Δd=0
15.2
39.6
53.1
21.6
48.6
62.9
40.2
Δd=1
16.0
40.5
54.0
22.2
51.1
64.6
41.4
Δd=2
15.9
40.1
53.2
21.0
50.1
63.7
40.7
LoRS
12.7
32.9
44.9
14.7
37.6
51.1
32.3
Appendix
Table 15: Effect of Δd on retrieval performance.
Pairs
LoRS
Ours
IR@1
IR@5
IR@10
TR@1
TR@5
TR@10
IR@1
IR@5
IR@10
TR@1
TR@5
TR@10
100
5.8
20.6
30.7
10.2
29.4
39.8
8.1
23.5
34.9
13.5
33.8
46.4
200
6.1
20.9
32.1
12.0
31.4
43.1
8.4
24.1
35.4
14.1
35.6
48.4
500
7.7
22.9
33.3
12.7
33.5
46.1
9.1
25.9
37.2
15.0
36.5
50.1
Appendix
Table 16: Results on DiNo-v2 + BGE-1.5 on MS-COCO. The model trained on the full dataset performs: IR@1=22.5, IR@5=50.8, IR@10=65.0, TR@1=31.7, TR@5=61.4, TR@10=74.0.
Method
Model
IR@1
IR@5
IR@10
TR@1
TR@5
TR@10
Mean
LoRS
NFNet + BERT
12.1
33.2
45.9
16.6
42.2
55.7
34.3
NFNet + DistilBERT
7.6
24.5
34.7
12.7
34.5
46.1
26.7
RegNet + BERT
4.5
15.0
23.7
5.4
21.0
32.4
17.0
Ours
NFNet + BERT
14.6
39.1
52.5
21.5
50.6
64.0
40.4
NFNet + DistilBERT
11.3
29.8
41.3
19.0
41.3
56.5
33.2
RegNet + BERT
4.2
14.4
22.3
8.7
23.8
36.0
18.2
Appendix
Table 17: Cross architecture generalization.
Method
time (s/iter)
peak memory (GB)
avg memory (GB)
100
200
500
100
200
500
100
200
500
LoRS
4.522
4.913
7.392
13.713
16.333
20.942
5.339
5.586
7.985
Ours
4.570
4.554
7.250
13.768
13.818
20.363
5.390
5.404
7.592
Appendix
Table 18: Runtime and memory comparison across different numbers of pairs.
Clusters
ipc
IR@1
IR@5
IR@10
TR@1
TR@5
TR@10
Mean
100
1
0.7
3.2
5.7
2.1
7.1
10.5
4.9
100
2
1.4
5.5
9.6
2.9
9.3
14.5
7.2
100
5
3.0
10.7
17.9
4.8
15.8
25.8
13.0
200
1
1.4
5.5
9.6
2.9
9.3
14.5
7.2
200
2
2.5
9.6
15.6
5.6
15.9
23.8
12.2
500
1
3.2
11.7
18.9
6.1
18.1
26.0
14.0
Appendix
Table 19: Results of the NCFM method on Flickr30K.
Figure 7: Flickr-30K before and after distillation. (Left) The original image-text pairs before the distillation. (Right) The image-text pairs after distillation.
Figure 8: COCO before and after distillation. (Left) The original image-text pairs before the distillation. (Right) The image-text pairs after distillation.
Dataset distillation compresses large training sets into compact synthetic datasets while preserving downstream performance. As modern systems increasingly operate on paired vision-language inputs, multimodal distillation must preserve representation quality and cross-modal alignment under tight compute and memory budgets, yet prior methods often require heavy computes and overlook their correlations. To address this, we present Multimodal Distribution Matching (MDM), a geometry-aware framework for efficient and generalizable multimodal distillation. Specifically, MDM integrates complementary components at the data, model, and loss levels. At the data level, it initializes synthetic image-text pairs by sampling from clusters in the joint embedding space. At the model level, it forms a mixed teacher by interpolating independently fine-tuned models in weight space according to their angular deviation from the pretrained anchor. At the loss level, it matches joint distributions on the unit hypersphere using a geometry-aware matching objective that exploits the joint features in the cross-modal agreement and discrepancy directions along with symmetric contrastive learning. Across image-text retrieval benchmarks with cross-architecture evaluation, MDM yields compact synthetic sets that preserve multimodal semantics, substantially reduce distillation cost, and remain robust across architectures.
Recent advances in multimodal learning have achieved remarkable success across diverse vision-language tasks. However, such progress heavily relies on large-scale image-text datasets, making training costly and inefficient. Prior efforts in dataset filtering and pruning attempt to mitigate this issue, but still require relatively large subsets to maintain performance and fail under very small subsets. Dataset distillation offers a promising alternative, yet existing multimodal dataset distillation methods require full-dataset training and joint optimization of image pixels and text features, making them architecture-dependent and limiting cross-architecture generalization. To overcome this, we propose a learning-free dataset distillation framework that eliminates the need for large-scale training and optimization while enhancing generalization across architectures. Our method uses CLIP to extract aligned image-text embeddings, obtains prototypes, and employs an unCLIP decoder to synthesize images, enabling efficient and scalable multimodal dataset distillation. Extensive experiments demonstrate that our approach consistently outperforms optimization-based dataset distillation and subset selection methods, achieving state-of-the-art cross-architecture generalization.
Junhyeok Choi, Sangwoo Mo, Minwoo Chae
Department of Industrial and Management Engineering, Pohang University of Science and Technology
Cross-modal knowledge distillation (CMKD) studies how a (large) teacher model trained on one type of data (e.g., images) can guide a (smaller) student model building on another type of data (e.g., text/audio). Existing CMKD methods often require paired multi-modal data with aligned semantics, but obtaining such paired data are often costly and impractical. To mitigate this limitation, we develop a new CMKD framework for the more challenging setting where paired data are unavailable. In particular, we establish a cross-modal distributional relationship between teacher and student models, which reveals two fundamental quantities governing effective distillation: feature alignment and label alignment. These quantities characterize semantic discrepancy between modalities at the levels of representation and prediction distributions, respectively. Motivated by this insight, we propose a principled framework, with theoretical guarantees, that enables effective cross-modal knowledge distillation by aligning distributions rather than individual samples. Extensive experiments across a wide range of multimodal benchmarks show that our framework is highly effective in both unpaired and paired data settings, improving significantly over prior work.
Trong Khiem Tran, Anh Duc Chu, Quang Hung Pham +2
School of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Washington State University, Pullman, US · School of Information and Communications Technology, Hanoi University of Science and Technology, Hanoi, Vietnam