Why does Knowledge Distillation work? Rethink its attention and fidelity mechanism
Expert Systems with Applications, ISSN: 0957-4174, Vol: 262, Page: 125579
2025
- 3Captures
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Captures3
- Readers3
Article Description
Does Knowledge Distillation (KD) really work? Conventional wisdom viewed it as a knowledge transfer procedure where a perfect mimicry of the student to its teacher is desired. However, paradoxical studies indicate that closely replicating the teacher’s behavior does not consistently improve student generalization, posing questions on its possible causes. Confronted with this gap, we hypothesize that diverse attentions in teachers contribute to better student generalization at the expense of reduced fidelity in ensemble KD setups. Focusing on supervised image classification task, by increasing data augmentation strengths, our key findings reveal a decrease in the Intersection over Union (IoU) of attentions between teacher models, leading to reduced student overfitting and decreased fidelity. We propose this low-fidelity phenomenon as an underlying characteristic rather than a pathology when training KD. This suggests that stronger data augmentation fosters a broader perspective provided by the divergent teacher ensemble and lower student–teacher mutual information, benefiting generalization performance. We further demonstrate that even optimization towards logits-matching between teachers and student can hardly mitigate this low-fidelity effect. These insights clarify the mechanism on low-fidelity phenomenon in KD. Thus, we offer new perspectives on optimizing student model performance, by emphasizing increased diversity in teacher attentions and reduced mimicry behavior between teachers and student. Codes are available at https://github.com/zisci2/RethinkKD
Bibliographic Details
Elsevier BV
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know