MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404212170 · doi:10.1016/j.mlwa.2024.100605

A survey on knowledge distillation: Recent advancements

2024· article· en· W4404212170 on OpenAlexaff
Amir Moslemi, Anna Briskina, Jason H. Li

Bibliographic record

VenueMachine Learning with Applications · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDomain Adaptation and Few-Shot Learning
Canadian institutionsSeneca PolytechnicToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDistillationData scienceBiochemical engineeringComputer scienceChromatographyChemistryEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Deep learning has achieved notable success across academia, medicine, and industry. Its ability to identify complex patterns in large-scale data and to manage millions of parameters has made it highly advantageous. However, deploying deep learning models presents a significant challenge due to their high computational demands. Knowledge distillation (KD) has emerged as a key technique for model compression and efficient knowledge transfer, enabling the deployment of deep learning models on resource-limited devices without compromising performance. This survey examines recent advancements in KD, highlighting key innovations in architectures, training paradigms, and application domains. We categorize contemporary KD methods into traditional approaches, such as response-based, feature-based, and relation-based knowledge distillation, and novel advanced paradigms, including self-distillation, cross-modal distillation, and adversarial distillation strategies. Additionally, we discuss emerging challenges, particularly in the context of distillation under limited data scenarios, privacy-preserving KD, and the interplay with other model compression techniques like quantization. Our survey also explores applications across computer vision, natural language processing, and multimodal tasks, where KD has driven performance improvements and enhanced model compression. This review aims to provide researchers and practitioners with a comprehensive understanding of the state-of-the-art in knowledge distillation, bridging foundational concepts with the latest methodologies and practical implications.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.006
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.279 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations75
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMachine Learning with ApplicationsSame topicDomain Adaptation and Few-Shot LearningFrench-language works237,207