ShuffleCount: Task-Specific Knowledge Distillation for Crowd Counting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One promising way to improve the performance of a small deep network is knowledge distillation. Performances of smaller student models with fewer parameters and lower computational cost can be comparable to that of larger teacher models in specific computer vision tasks. Knowledge distillation is especially attractive for the high-accuracy real-time crowd counting task in our daily lives, where the computational resource can be limited and the model efficiency is extremely important. In this paper, we propose a novel task-specific knowledge distillation framework for crowd counting, named ShuffleCount. Its main contributions are two-fold: First, different from existing frameworks, our task-specific ShuffleCount effectively learns from the teacher network through hierarchic feature regulation, and better avoids negative knowledge transferred from the teacher. Second, the proposed student network, i.e., the optimized Shufflenet, shows promising performances. When tested on the benchmark dataset Shanghai Tech A, it achieves a 15% higher accuracy yet keeps low computational cost when compared with the state-of-the-art MobileCount. Our code is available online at https://github.com/JiangMinyang/CC-KD.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".