CES-KD: Curriculum-based Expert Selection for Guided Knowledge Distillation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Knowledge distillation (KD) is an effective tool for compressing deep classification models for edge devices. However, the performance of KD is affected by the large capacity gap between the teacher and student networks. Recent methods have resorted to a multiple teacher assistant (TA) setting for KD, which sequentially decreases the size of the teacher model to relatively bridge the size gap between these models. This paper proposes a new technique called Curriculum Expert Selection for Knowledge Distillation (CES-KD) to efficiently enhance the learning of a compact student under the capacity gap problem. This technique is built upon the hypothesis that a student network should be guided gradually using stratified teaching curriculum as it learns easy (hard) data samples better and faster from a lower (higher) capacity teacher network. Specifically, our method is a gradual TA-based KD technique that selects a single teacher per input image based on a curriculum driven by the difficulty in classifying the image. In this work, we empirically verify our hypothesis and rigorously experiment with CIFAR-10, CIFAR-100, CINIC-10, and ImageNet datasets and show improved accuracy on VGG-like models, ResNets, and WideResNets architectures.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".