mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Scaling Training Data with Lossy Image Compression

arXiv 2407.17954 ↗First posted 25 Jul 2024cs.CV cs.IT cs.LGcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Empirically-determined scaling laws have been broadly successful in predicting the evolution of large machine learning models with training data and number of parameters. As a consequence, they have been useful for optimizing the allocation of limited resources, most notably compute time. In certain applications, storage space is an important constraint, and data format needs to be chosen carefully as a consequence. Computer vision is a prominent example: images are inherently analog, but are always stored in a digital format using a finite number of bits. Given a dataset of digital images, the number of bits L to store each of them can be further reduced using lossy data compression. This, however, can degrade the quality of the model trained on such images, since each example has lower resolution. In order to capture this trade-off and optimize storage of training data, we propose a `storage scaling law' that describes the joint evolution of test error with sample size and number of bits per image. We prove that this law holds within a stylized model for image compression, and verify it empirically on two computer vision tasks, extracting the relevant parameters. We then show that this law can be used to optimize the lossy compression level. At given storage, models trained on optimally compressed images present a significantly smaller test error with respect to models trained on the original data. Finally, we investigate the potential benefits of randomizing the compression level.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 21 of its 34 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 25 Jul 2024.

Builds on

21 of 34 references.

References · 21

  1. 2015Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognitioncited by 51,809
  2. 2021High-Resolution Image Synthesis with Latent Diffusion Modelscited by 18,694
  3. 2014Microsoft COCO: Common Objects in Contextcited by 17,498
  4. 2017Mask R-CNNcited by 7,259
  5. 2020Scaling Laws for Neural Language Modelscited by 6,411
  6. 2016The Cityscapes Dataset for Semantic Urban Scene Understandingcited by 4,427
  7. 2022LAION-5B: An open large-scale dataset for training next generation image-text modelscited by 4,131
  8. 2021SegFormer: Simple and Efficient Design for Semantic Segmentation with Transformerscited by 2,923
  9. 2017Deep Learning Scaling is Predictable, Empiricallycited by 556
  10. 2020Scaling Laws for Autoregressive Generative Modelingcited by 510
  11. 2023Scaling Data-Constrained Language Modelscited by 391
  12. 2021Explaining Neural Scaling Lawscited by 353
9 more
  1. 2017Lossy Image Compression with Compressive Autoencoderscited by 289
  2. 2021Scaling Laws for Transfercited by 265
  3. 2019A Constructive Prediction of the Generalization Error Across Scalescited by 202
  4. 2016A study of the effect of JPG compression on adversarial imagescited by 196
  5. 2019iSAID: A Large-scale Dataset for Instance Segmentation in Aerial Imagescited by 195
  6. 2020Benign overfitting in ridge regressioncited by 152
  7. 2022Revisiting Neural Scaling Laws in Language and Visioncited by 129
  8. 2016Understanding How Image Quality Affects Deep Neural Networkscited by 118
  9. 2017Keeping the Bad Guys Out: Protecting and Vaccinating Deep Learning with JPEG Compressioncited by 86

Built on by

Not cited yet.