4.7 Article

Online knowledge distillation with elastic peer

期刊

INFORMATION SCIENCES
卷 583, 期 -, 页码 1-13

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ins.2021.10.043

关键词

Neural network compression; Knowledge distillation; Knowledge transfer

资金

  1. National Key Research and Development Program of China [2018YFB0204301]
  2. National Key Research and Development Program [2017YFB0202104]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Knowledge distillation is effective for transferring knowledge, but the existing training strategy for online knowledge distillation may limit diversity among peer networks. A new strategy called KDEP is introduced to address this issue and improve the overall performance of online knowledge distillation.
Knowledge distillation is a highly effective method for transferring knowledge from a cum-bersome teacher network to a lightweight student network. However, teacher networks are not always available. An alternative method called online knowledge distillation, which applies a group of peer networks to learn collaboratively with each other, has been pro -posed previously. In this study, we revisit online knowledge distillation and find that the existing training strategy limits the diversity among peer networks. Thus, online knowledge distillation cannot achieve its full potential. To address this, a novel online knowledge dis-tillation with elastic peer (KDEP) strategy is introduced here. The entire training process is divided into two phases by KDEP. In each phase, a specific training strategy is applied to adjust the diversity to an appropriate degree. Extensive experiments have been conducted on individual benchmarks, including CIFAR-100, CINIC-10, Tiny ImageNet, and Caltech-UCSD Birds. The results demonstrate the superiority of KDEP. For example, when the peer networks are ShuffleNetV2-1.0 and ShuffleNetV2-0.5, the target peer network ShuffleNetV2-0.5 achieves 57:00% top-1 accuracy on Tiny ImageNet via KDEP. (c) 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据