Elamur Research
☰
home / papers / 2015 / Distilling the Knowledge in a Neural Network

Distilling the Knowledge in a Neural Network

Written for the Research library (claude-opus-5-5) from the paper text, in our own words: the license "arXiv — non-exclusive licence to distribute" does not allow redistributing the text itself. Original — arxiv.org/pdf/1503.02531

Summary

Ensembles and very large regularized networks generalize well, but they are often too slow and expensive to serve to many users. Hinton, Vinyals and Dean propose "distillation", in which a compact student network learns to reproduce the class probabilities of a big "cumbersome" teacher. Raising the softmax temperature exposes the small probabilities the teacher gives to wrong classes, which reveal how it generalizes. The student's loss combines cross-entropy on these softened targets, scaled by T², with a lower-weighted cross-entropy on true labels. The authors show that Caruana-style logit matching is the high-temperature limit of this scheme. On MNIST, a small net recovers most of a dropout-trained large net's accuracy and can even recognize digits missing from its transfer set. For an acoustic model related to Android voice search, most of an ensemble's gain fits into one normal-sized network, and soft targets strongly regularize training on scarce data. The paper also introduces specialist networks for easily confused classes on JFT, which train in parallel, unlike mixtures of experts.

Key points

  • MNIST baseline result:
    • The teacher (2×1200 ReLU units, dropout, two-pixel jitter) made 67 test errors.
    • An unregularized 2×800 net made 146 errors.
    • The same 2×800 net trained on soft targets at T=20 made only 74 errors.
  • Temperature choice: Students with at least 300 units per layer performed similarly at any T above 8. Very small students (30 units per layer) worked best at T between 2.5 and 4.
  • Unseen classes:
    • With every 3 removed from the transfer set, the student made 206 errors, 133 of them on the 1010 test threes.
    • Raising the 3-class bias by 3.5 cut this to 109 errors, with 98.6% of threes correct.
    • Training only on 7s and 8s gave 47.3% error, which fell to 13.2% after bias adjustment.
  • Soft targets as regularizer: For the 85M-parameter speech model trained on 3% of the data (about 20M examples):
    • Hard targets overfit and peaked at 44.5% test frame accuracy.
    • Soft targets reached 57.0%, without early stopping.
    • The full-data baseline reached 58.9%.
  • Specialists on JFT: Class subsets are chosen from the generalist's confusion matrix, and other classes go into a single dustbin class. Accuracy gains grew as more specialists covered a class. Distilling the specialists back into one net is left for future work.

Our summary of the paper, in our own words — not its text. The work belongs to its authors; read it at the links above.

Fields: Mathematics & statistics

Cited by

2139 papers of our library cite it (of the 140673 whose bibliographies we read); 70 of them have a page here, 2069 not yet.

Cite

The paper itself, not this page. BibTeX from the library's record of the work. DOI 10.48550/arxiv.1503.02531 · arXiv 1503.02531

@misc{hinton2015distilling,
  title = {{Distilling the Knowledge in a Neural Network}},
  author = {Hinton, Geoffrey and Vinyals, Oriol and Dean, Jeff},
  year = {2015},
  doi = {10.48550/arxiv.1503.02531},
  eprint = {1503.02531},
  archivePrefix = {arXiv},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.1503.02531}
}

References

9 references, 0 of them with a card of ours. ↗ leads to the work, «find» searches for one we have no id for yet.

  1. C. Buciluǎ, R. Caruana, and A. Niculescu-Mizil. Model compression. In Proceedings of the 12th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, KDD ’06, pages 535–541, New York, NY, USA, 2006. ACM. find
  2. J. Dean, G. S. Corrado, R. Monga, K. Chen, M. Devin, Q. V. Le, M. Z. Mao, M. Ranzato, A. Senior, P. Tucker, K. Yang, and A. Y. Ng. Large scale distributed deep networks. In NIPS, 2012. find
  3. T. G. Dietterich. Ensemble methods in machine learning. In Multiple classifier systems, pages 1–15. Springer, 2000. find
  4. G. E. Hinton, L. Deng, D. Yu, G. E. Dahl, A. Mohamed, N. Jaitly, A. Senior, V. Vanhoucke, P. Nguyen, T. N Sainath, and B. Kingsbury. Deep neural networks for acoustic modeling in speech recognition: The shared views of four research groups. Signal Processing Magazine, IEEE, 29(6):82–97, 2012. find
  5. G. E. Hinton, N. Srivastava, A. Krizhevsky, I. Sutskever, and R. R. Salakhutdinov. Improving neural networks by preventing co-adaptation of feature detectors. arXiv preprint arXiv:1207.0580, 2012. find
  6. R. A. Jacobs, M. I. Jordan, S. J. Nowlan, and G. E. Hinton. Adaptive mixtures of local experts. Neural computation, 3(1):79–87, 1991. find
  7. A. Krizhevsky, I. Sutskever, and G. E. Hinton. Imagenet classification with deep convolutional neural networks. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pages 1097–1105, 2012. find
  8. J. Li, R. Zhao, J. Huang, and Y. Gong. Learning small-size dnn with output-distribution-based criteria. In Proceedings Interspeech 2014, pages 1910–1914, 2014. find
  9. N. Srivastava, G.E. Hinton, A. Krizhevsky, I. Sutskever, and R. R. Salakhutdinov. Dropout: A simple way to prevent neural networks from overfitting. The Journal of Machine Learning Research, 15(1):1929–1958, 2014. find