The Impact of Coreset Selection on Spurious Correlations and Group Robustness
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Coreset selection methods have shown promise in reducing the training data size while maintaining model performance for data-efficient machine learning. However, as many datasets suffer from biases that cause models to learn spurious correlations instead of causal features, it is important to understand whether and how dataset reduction methods may perpetuate, amplify, or mitigate these biases. In this work, we conduct the first comprehensive analysis of the implications of data selection on the spurious bias levels of the selected coresets and the robustness of downstream models trained on them. We use an extensive experimental setting spanning ten different spurious correlations benchmarks, five score metrics to characterize sample importance/ difficulty, and five data selection policies across a broad range of coreset sizes. Thereby, we unravel a series of nontrivial nuances in interactions between sample difficulty and bias alignment, as well as dataset bias and resultant model robustness. For example, we find that selecting coresets using embedding-based sample characterization scores runs a comparatively lower risk of inadvertently exacerbating bias than selecting using characterizations based on learning dynamics. Most importantly, our analysis reveals that although some coreset selection methods could achieve lower bias levels by prioritizing difficult samples, they do not reliably guarantee downstream robustness.
Key facts. Cited by 4 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 57 of its 71 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 15 Jul 2025.
Builds on
57 of 71 references.
References · 57
- 2015Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognitioncited by 52,096
- 2018BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understandingcited by 40,399
- 2014ImageNet Large Scale Visual Recognition Challengecited by 8,498
- 2022LAION-5B: An open large-scale dataset for training next generation image-text modelscited by 4,152
- 2014Deep Learning Face Attributes in the Wildcited by 3,693
- 2017A Broad-Coverage Challenge Corpus for Sentence Understanding through Inferencecited by 2,682
- 2016Visual Genome: Connecting Language and Vision Using Crowdsourced Dense Image Annotationscited by 2,656
- 2020Shortcut Learning in Deep Neural Networkscited by 1,969
- 2019Invariant Risk Minimizationcited by 1,854
- 2017Understanding Black-box Predictions via Influence Functionscited by 1,741
- 2021Scaling Vision Transformerscited by 999
- 2018Generalized Cross Entropy Loss for Training Deep Neural Networks with Noisy Labelscited by 997
38 more
- 2017Revisiting Unreasonable Effectiveness of Data in Deep Learning Eracited by 919
- 2018An Empirical Study of Example Forgetting during Deep Neural Network Learningcited by 678
- 2018Annotation Artifacts in Natural Language Inference Datacited by 671
- 2019Data Shapley: Equitable Valuation of Data for Machine Learningcited by 629
- 2021Deep Learning on a Data Diet: Finding Important Examples Early in Trainingcited by 533
- 2022Beyond neural scaling laws: beating power law scaling via data pruningcited by 528
- 2021Just Train Twice: Improving Group Robustness without Training Group Informationcited by 523
- 2020What Neural Networks Memorize and Why: Discovering the Long Tail via Influence Estimationcited by 497
- 2019Nuanced Metrics for Measuring Unintended Bias with Real Data for Text Classificationcited by 404
- 2022Last Layer Re-Training is Sufficient for Robustness to Spurious Correlationscited by 381
- 2018Confounding variables can degrade generalization performance of radiological deep learning modelscited by 379
- 2020Noise or Signal: The Role of Image Backgrounds in Object Recognitioncited by 343
- 2019Selection via Proxy: Efficient Data Selection for Deep Learningcited by 339
- 2021Multimodal datasets: misogyny, pornography, and malignant stereotypescited by 327
- 2023TRAK: Attributing Model Behavior at Scalecited by 283
- 2020Identifying Mislabeled Data using the Area Under the Margin Rankingcited by 261
- 2020Large image datasets: A pyrrhic win for computer vision?cited by 237
- 2019Hidden Stratification Causes Clinically Meaningful Failures in Machine Learning for Medical Imagingcited by 216
- 2016What makes ImageNet good for transfer learning?cited by 192
- 2022Domino: Discovering Systematic Errors with Cross-Modal Embeddingscited by 156
- 2022DeepCore: A Comprehensive Library for Coreset Selection in Deep Learningcited by 147
- 2018Strike (with) a Pose: Neural Networks Are Easily Fooled by Strange Poses of Familiar Objectscited by 143
- 2020Learning from Failure: Training Debiased Classifier from Biased Classifiercited by 133
- 2022Revisiting Neural Scaling Laws in Language and Visioncited by 132
- 2022Coverage-centric Coreset Selection for High Pruning Ratescited by 117
- 2020Towards Debiasing NLU Models from Unknown Biasescited by 116
- 2022NICO++: Towards Better Benchmarking for Domain Generalizationcited by 86
- 2022A Whac-A-Mole Dilemma: Shortcuts Come in Multiples Where Mitigating One Amplifies Otherscited by 85
- 2022MetaShift: A Dataset of Datasets for Evaluating Contextual Distribution Shifts and Training Conflictscited by 81
- 2016Places: An Image Database for Deep Scene Understandingcited by 76
- 2023Simple and Fast Group Robustness by Automatic Feature Reweightingcited by 68
- 2023Large-scale Dataset Pruning with Dynamic Uncertaintycited by 63
- 2021Which Shortcut Cues Will DNNs Choose? A Study from the Parameter-Space Perspectivecited by 57
- 2022Characterizing Datapoints via Second-Split Forgettingcited by 37
- 2023Overwriting Pretrained Bias with Finetuning Datacited by 32
- 2023Towards a statistical theory of data selection under weak supervisioncited by 27
- 2023FACTS: First Amplify Correlations and Then Slice to Discover Biascited by 26
- 2022Why does Throwing Away Data Improve Worst-Group Error?cited by 22
50 most cited of 57 All 57 (JSON)
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2025: 1; 2026: 3.
4 papers.
- 2025FT-NCFM: An Influence-Aware Data Distillation Framework for Efficient VLA Modelscited by 1
- 2026Are Coreset Selection Methods Worth Their Cost?cited by 1
- 2026Position: Stop Preaching and Start Practising Data Frugality for Responsible Development of AIcited by 0
- 2026Mitigating Spurious Correlations with Memorization-Guided Dataset De-Biasingcited by 0
- 2026Are Coreset Selection Methods Worth Their Cost?19 Sep 2026
- 2026Mitigating Spurious Correlations with Memorization-Guided Dataset De-Biasing1 Jun 2026
- 2026Position: Stop Preaching and Start Practising Data Frugality for Responsible Development of AI23 Feb 2026
- 2025FT-NCFM: An Influence-Aware Data Distillation Framework for Efficient VLA Models20 Nov 2025