Are Coreset Selection Methods Worth Their Cost?

Title:Are Coreset Selection Methods Worth Their Cost?

Abstract:Coreset selection picks a representative subset of the labeled training set to make training cheaper. However, it is usually evaluated by downstream accuracy at a fixed subset size, ignoring both the time spent selecting the subset and the training recipe behind each reported number. We introduce an end-to-end benchmark that standardizes downstream training and charges selection and training to the same auditable wall-clock budget, spanning 4 datasets from CIFAR-10 to ImageNet-1K, 11 selectors, 5 fractions, and 3 seeds, with over 1,500 released runs. Repeated-sampling work has shown that budget-aware evaluation already favors random strategies. Our two budget studies test whether that verdict survives when every selector is granted its most favorable operating point. Across eight wall-clock budget anchors on each of CIFAR-10 and Tiny ImageNet, no anchor is won by a sophisticated selector: every winner is class-balanced random sampling, repeated random sampling, or full-data training. In fixed-budget duels on ImageNet-1K, training on all data for fewer epochs beats every selection strategy we probe while also costing the least. A per-dataset cost audit shows that selection cost is dominated at every scale by a fixed full-dataset scan, so it cannot be amortized away by selecting a smaller fraction, and its absolute size does not extrapolate from one dataset to another. We further quantify when selection does pay back through subset reuse, and document 9 correctness fixes to a widely used codebase, one of which shifts a standard Herding baseline by nearly 6 points. Selection time is not free preprocessing, and an evaluation that ignores it measures the wrong quantity.

23 pages, 7 figures. Benchmark artifacts include per-run result tables, selected indices, and raw timing-audit tables

Machine Learning (cs.LG); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (cs.CV)

arXiv:2609.22894 [cs.LG]

(or arXiv:2609.22894v1 [cs.LG] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.22894 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.