A) Knowledge distillation

Hinton et al. [Reference Hinton, Vinyals and Dean7] distilled knowledge from a very large teacher model to promote a small student model by using a softened softmax of a teacher network. The rationale is to take advantage of extra supervision provided by the teacher model during the training of the student model, beyond a conventional supervised learning objective such as the cross-entropy loss subject to the training data labels. Romero et al. [Reference Romero, Ballas, Kahou, Chassang, Gatta and Bengio8] proposed “Hint training” to train partial layers, then used the final output layers to train the student model to enhance the performance. Park et al. [Reference Park, Kim, Lu and Cho11] proposed to transfer mutual relations of data examples. Yim et al. [Reference Yim, Joo, Bae and Kim6] transferred knowledge from the T-DNN to the S-DNN as output feature maps rather than as layer parameters. They become a certain layer group in the network and define the correlation between the input and output feature maps of the layer group as a Gram matrix so that the feature correlations of the S-DNN and T-DNN become similar. We expand the Gram matrix by adding more than cross-one layer. Furthermore, approach taken by Lee et al. [Reference Lee, Kim and Song10] is based on the correlation between two feature maps as knowledge by using Singular Value Decomposition (SVD). However, this approach [Reference Lee, Kim and Song10] will cost a significant computation time because feature maps that are needed to be decomposed by CPU. As a result, we take FSP [10] model as a baseline to enhance as our proposed methods.

Moreover, while earlier distillation methods often take an offline learning strategy that need two phases of the training procedure, the more recently proposed deep learning [Reference Zhang, Xiang, Hospedales and Lu12] method overcomes this limitation by conducting an online distillation in one-phase training between two peer student models. We will add KLDivergence in our proposed method, which makes it different than online methods. Anil et al. [Reference Anil, Pereyra, Passos, Ormandi, Dahl and Hinton13] extend [Reference Zhang, Xiang, Hospedales and Lu12] to decrease the training time of large-scale distributed neural networks. Lan et al. [Reference Lan, Zhu and Gong14] present an On-the-fly Native Ensemble (ONE) learning strategy for one-stage online distillation. However, existing online methods lack a strong “teacher” model, which limits the efficacy of knowledge discovery.

In [Reference Wang and Yoon21], Wang and Yoon provide a comprehensive survey on the recent progress of KD methods together with S-T frameworks typically used for vision tasks and systematically analyze the research status of KD in vision applications. KDGAN consisting of a classifier, a teacher, and a discriminator is proposed in [Reference Wang, Zhang, Sun and Qi22]. The classifier and the teacher learn from each other via distillation losses and are adversarially trained against the discriminator via adversarial losses. From the concrete distribution, continuous samples are generated to obtain low-variance gradient updates, which speed up the training. To efficiently transmit extracted useful teacher information to the student DNN, Bae et al. propose to perform bottom-up step-by-step transfer of densely distilled knowledge [Reference Bae, Yeo, Yim, Kim, Pyo and Kim23].

B) Deep neural network compression and efficient processing

Scientists found that network pruning can be used not only to reduce network complexity but also to prevent over-fitting. An old method [Reference Hanson and Pratt24] to pruning was the Biased Weight Decay. Han et al. [Reference Han, Pool, Tran and Dally25] first proposed that it's peaceful to remove neurons with zero input or output connections from the neural network. By using L1/L2 regularization, some of the weights converged to zeros after training. As a result, by using the combination of pruning, quantization, and Huffman coding [Reference Han, Mao and Dally26], the compression of AlexNet can reach 35$\times$. CLIP-Q [Reference Tung and Mori27] flexibly makes weight pruning choices that can adapt to compress the DNN during the training time. Apart from weight pruning, there is another pruning approach, named channel pruning, that assesses neuron importance. Li et al. [Reference Li, Kadav, Durdanovic, Samet and Graf28] computed the importance of each filter by calculating its absolute weight sum. Furthermore, Hsiao et al.[Reference Hsiao, Chang, Chou and Chiu29] measured the significance of each filter by calculating the largest singular value.

In [Reference Deng, Li, Han, Shi and Xie30], Deng et al. provide a comprehensive survey on reviewing the mainstream compression approaches such as compacted model, tensor decomposition, data quantization, and network sparsification to compress DNN without compromising accuracy. In [Reference Sze, Chen, Yang and Emer31], Sze et al. present a tutorial and survey on understanding the key design for DNN and evaluating different DNN hardware implementations with benchmarks in order to achieve processing efficiency.

C) Low-rank decomposition

Low-rank approximation [Reference Denil, Shakibi, Dinh and De Freitas32–Reference Zhang, Zou, He and Sun35] approaches have been widely studied. However, low-rank approximation is inconvenient because each decomposition of feature maps is computationally expensive. Moreover, the methods of low-rank approximation only consider a few layers; therefore, they cannot consider the compression of the whole network.

D) Quantization

Quantization is a method for reducing the number of bits for weight and bias of each layer. We can divide methods either by using auxiliary data [Reference Basu and Varshney36, Reference Gupta, Agrawal, Gopalakrishnan and Narayanan37], or not using auxiliary data [Reference Dettmers38–Reference Ji, Ovsiannikov, Wang, Shi and Zhang40]. Additionally, there are two research approaches in compressing on bit-level. One is to use fixed-point implementation, and the other is to use common quantization methods, for example, K-means and scalar quantization. For fixed-point implementation, Hwang and Sung [Reference Hwang and Sung39] proposed a design with ternary weights, 3-bit signals, and an optimization process which was done by back-propagation-based re-training. For the other approach, Ji et al. [Reference Ji, Ovsiannikov, Wang, Shi and Zhang40] designed a supervised iteration quantization to reduce the bit resolution of the weights. They applied K-means-based adaptive quantization methods, such as vector quantization using K-means, product quantization, residual quantization, and discussed the efficacy of their design on compressing deep convolutional networks.

E) Deep learning

Special issues on deep learning framework architectures, hardware acceleration, DNN over the cloud, fog, edge, and end devices are elaborated [Reference Kang41]. In addition, methods and applications especially emphasizing on exploring recent advances in perceptual applications are addressed and discussed [Reference Kang41]. In [Reference Wang, Peng and Ko42], Wang et al. present to learn a proper prior from data for adversarial autoencoders. The notion of code generators is presented to transform manually selected simple priors into ones that can better characterize the data distribution.

A) Cross-layer matrix

2) Mathematical expression of the knowledge distillation

Based on FSP [Reference Yim, Joo, Bae and Kim6], the Gramian matrix can be defined by two output feature maps. We propose the Gramian matrix as the knowledge to transfer. The Gramian matrix G $\mathbb {R}^{m \times n}$ is generated by the features from two layers. One output feature map is defined as $F^{1} \in \mathbb {R}^{h \times w \times m }$, where $h$, $w$, represent the height and width of output feature maps and $m$ represents the number of output channels. The other output feature map is defined as $F^{2} \in \mathbb {R}^{h \times w \times n }$. Then, the Gramian matrix G $\mathbb {R}^{m \times n}$ is calculated by (1)

(1)\begin{equation} G_{i,j}(x; W)=\sum_{s=1}^{h} \sum_{t=1}^{w} \frac{ F_{s,t,i}^{1}(x;W) \times F_{s,t,j}^{2}(x;W)}{h \times w}, \end{equation}

where $i,\,j$ represent the points of cross-one-layer results, $x$ represents the input image and $W$ are the weights of the network model. Unlike FSP [Reference Yim, Joo, Bae and Kim6], we select several points not only from cross-one module layer but also from cross-more-than-one module layer to generate more Gramian matrices as shown in (2) and (3).

(2)\begin{align} G_{i,q}(x; W)& =\sum_{s=1}^{h} \sum_{t=1}^{w} \frac{ F_{s,t,i}^{1}(x;W) \times F_{s,t,q}^{2}(x;W)}{h \times w}, \end{align}

(3)\begin{align} G_{i,r}(x; W)& =\sum_{s=1}^{h} \sum_{t=1}^{w} \frac{ F_{s,t,i}^{1}(x;W) \times F_{s,t,r}^{2}(x;W)}{h \times w}, \end{align}

where $i,\,q$ represent the points of cross-two-layer results as shown in Fig. 2(b) and $i,\,r$ represent the points of cross-three-layer results as shown in Fig. 2(c). In Fig. 2, we see there are three different kinds of cross-layer matrix. Our proposed method is to combine all the Gramian matrix 2(d) as knowledge.

Fig. 2.

(a) Cross one layer. (b) Cross two layers. (c) Cross three layers. (d) Our proposed.

3) KD loss for the Gramian matrix

As discussed previously, the T-DNN will teach S-DNN the solution of question by using the Gramian matrix. We assume that there are $B$ Gramian matrices $G_{b}^{T}$, $u=1,\,\ldots,\,B$, which are generated by the T-DNN, and $B$ Gramian matrices $G_{b}^{S}$,$i=1,\,\ldots,\,B$, which are generated by the S-DNN. Next, each pair of Gramian matrices will be calculated as the cost function by using the squared L2 norm. The cost function of knowledge distillation $L_{KD}(W_{t}; W_{s})$ is defined as (4):

(4)\begin{align} L_{KD}(W_{t}; W_{s}) & = \frac{1}{B} \sum_{x} \sum_{b=1}^{B} \lambda_{i}\notag\\ & \quad \times ||G_{b}^{T}(x;W_{t})-G_{b}^{S}(x;W_{s})||_{2}^{2}, \end{align}

where $\lambda _{i}$ represents the weight for each KD loss and $B$ represents the numbers of Gramian matrices. Because our proposed method adds more Gramian matrices by creating the cross matrices, we initially set all KD losses with the same weight. As a result, the values of $\lambda _{i}$ are identical in our experiments.

B) KL Divergence

We propose using KL Divergence, which was used in DML [Reference Zhang, Xiang, Hospedales and Lu12], as our second-order loss function. In contrast to the online method [Reference Zhang, Xiang, Hospedales and Lu12] with two-direction learning, our offline method is only used in one direction from T-DNN to S-DNN. Given $D$ as the data examples $X={\{x_{n}\}_{n=1}^{D}}$ from $C$ classes, we represent the corresponding label set as $Y = \{ y_{i}\}_{n=1}^{C}$ with $y_{i}\{1,\,2,\,\ldots,\,C\}$. The probability of class $c$ for data example $x_{n}$ is given by a neural network $\theta _{1}$ and computed as

(5)\begin{equation} p_{1}^{C}(x_{n})=\frac{\exp(z_{1}^{C})}{\sum_{c=1}^{C} \exp(z_{1}^{C})},\end{equation}

where $p_{1}^{C}(x_{n})$ represents the probability distribution of $\theta _{1}$ and the logit $z_{1}^{C}$ is the output of the “softmax” layer in $\theta _{1}$. As a result, the formulation of KL Divergence can be computed as

(6)\begin{equation} L_{KL}({p_{T}||p_{S}}) = \sum_{d=1}^{D} \sum_{c=1}^{C} p_{T}^{c}(x_{d})log \frac{p_{T}^{c}(x_{d})}{p_{S}^{c}(x_{d})},\end{equation}

where $L_{KL}({p_{T}||p_{S}})$ represent the probability distribution of teacher and student model. We believe that the student model can get full of knowledge from teacher model by having distribution similar to teacher's distribution.

C) Offline ensemble

The original method of FSP [Reference Yim, Joo, Bae and Kim6] is discussed with one T-DNN to transfer one S-DNN. Compared with FSP [Reference Yim, Joo, Bae and Kim6], we propose using offline ensemble pre-trained teachers to generate the stochastic mean and improve the image classification result. The cost functions of knowledge distillation and KL Divergence are defined as

(7)\begin{align} & L_{KD}^{Ensemble}= \frac{1}{K}\sum_{k=1}^{K} L_{KD,k}, \end{align}

(8)\begin{align} & L_{KL}^{Ensemble}= \frac{1}{K}\sum_{k=1}^{K} L_{KL}({p_{k}||p_{S}}), \end{align}

where $L_{KD}^{Ensemble}$ represents the loss function of offline ensemble knowledge distillation, $L_{KL}^{Ensemble}$ represents the loss function of offline ensemble KL Divergence, $K$ represents the numbers of pre-trained teacher models (K=3). We believe that the offline ensemble pre-trained teacher models with the same architecture, but the different weights will transfer knowledge to student model by using the stochastic mean.

D) Overall loss function

We had already proposed $L_{KD}$, $L_{KL}$, and stochastic mean for our method. Hence, the overall loss function $L_{total}(\theta _{1})$ for training S-DNN is shown as (9)

(9)\begin{align} L_{total}(\theta_{1})=L_{CE}(\theta_{1}) + \frac{1}{K} \sum_{k=1}^{K}L_{KL}(p_{k}||p_{s}) + \frac{1}{K} \sum_{k=1}^{K}L_{KD,k},\end{align}

with the objective function of multi-class image classification $L_{CE}(\theta _{1})$ to train the network $\theta _{1}$ is defined as the cross entropy error between the predicted values and the correct labels:

(10)\begin{equation} L_{CE}(\theta_{1}) ={-}\sum_{d=1}^{D} \sum_{c=1}^{C} I(y_{d},c) log(p_{1}^{c}(x_{d})),\end{equation}

with an indicator function $I$ defined as

(11)\begin{equation} I(y_{i},m)=\left\{ \begin{array}{@{}ll} 1, & y_{n}=c \\ 0, & y_{n}\neq c, \end{array} \right. \end{equation}

To prevent $L_{KD,k}$ larger than $L_{CE}(\theta _{1})$ from inducing gradient explosion, we will adopt gradient clipping [Reference Pascanu, Mikolov and Bengio43] to limit the gradient of knowledge distillation$\nabla (\theta _{1})_{KD}^{clipped}$ during training procedure as shown in Equation (12):

(12)\begin{align} & \nabla(\theta_{1})_{KD}^{clipped}=\left\{ \begin{array}{@{}ll} \beta \times \nabla(\theta_{1})_{KD}, & \nabla(\theta_{1})_{KD} < \nabla(\theta_{1})_{CE} \\ \nabla(\theta_{1})_{KD}, & otherwise, \end{array} \right. \end{align}

(13)\begin{align} & \beta = \frac{1}{1+exp(-\tau +p)}, \end{align}

(14)\begin{align} & \tau = \frac{||\nabla(\theta_{1})_{CE}||_{2}}{||\nabla(\theta_{1})_{KD}||_{2}}, \end{align}

where $\beta$ is a sigmoid function. In Equation (13), $p$ means the current epoch of training. Furthermore, the $L_{2}$-norm ratios are the $L_{CE}$ and $L_{KD,k}$ in Equation (14). Hence, the rich knowledge distilled from T-DNN can be transferred knowledge S-DNN without worrying about gradient explosion.

A) Environment and datasets

Our proposed method is implemented in TensorFlow [Reference Abadi46] with Python 3.5 interference on the computers (CPU: Intel$^\circledR$ Core$^{TM}$ i7-7800X $@$ 3.5 GHZ, main memory: 32 GB DRAM, GPU: NVIDIA GEFORCE $^\circledR$ GTX 1080).

The CIFAR-100 dataset consists of 60000 images with a size of $32\times 32$, divided as 50000 training data and 10000 test data, and 100 classes. We used random shift, random rotation and horizontal flip as data augmentations. Our proposed method was tested under the same conditions as FSP [Reference Yim, Joo, Bae and Kim6], and for increasing the dependability of the testing results, we ran the experiments three times and took the average as the final experimental results. We take VGG and ResNet as the DNN to prove that our proposed method works. The T-DNN and S-DNN models are shown in Fig. 4. We picked VGG as our first model because its architecture is very simple and can be implemented quickly. As in SSKD_SVD [Reference Lee, Kim and Song10], we defined VGG-11 as T-DNN and VGG-6 as S-DNN. As in FSP [Reference Yim, Joo, Bae and Kim6], we defined ResNet-32 as T-DNN and partially reduced the residual modules to create ResNet-8 as S-DNN.

Fig. 4.

T-DNN and S-DNN of the VGG and ResNet models. T-DNN: VGG-11 and ResNet-32. S-DNN: VGG-6 and ResNet-8.

The ImageNet64*64 dataset consists of about 1.2 million images with a size of 64$\times$64, divided with about 1.2 million training data and 50 000 test data, and 1000 classes. We used the same data augmentations as same with CIFAR-100 and the experiments were run three times and took the average as the final result. On ImageNet64*64, we defined MobileNet-16 as T-DNN and MobileNet-9 as S-DNN as shown in Fig. 5.

Fig. 5.

T-DNN and S-DNN of the MobileNet models. T-DNN: MobileNet-16. S-DNN: MobileNet-9.

On CIFAR-100, the training procedure for networks was considered by FSP [Reference Yim, Joo, Bae and Kim6] and SSKD_SVD [Reference Lee, Kim and Song10]. We set the batch size to 128 and the training epochs to 200 during training, optimized the procedure by stochastic gradient descent [Reference Kiefer and Wolfowitz47], and adopted Nesterov accelerated gradient [Reference Nesterov48]. The initial learning rate was set to $10^{-2}$ and the momentum was set to 0.9. The decay parameter was set to $10^{-4}$. The learning rate was reduced to 0.1 per 50 epochs. Additionally, we set the batch size to 64 during training, training epochs to 40, and the learning rate was reduced to 0.1 per 10 epochs for ImageNet64*64.

C) Ablation

1) Cross-layer matrix

The different options of the cross matrix are shown in Fig. 6. Figure 6 (a) represents the “original” method FSP [Reference Yim, Joo, Bae and Kim6]. Figures 6(b) and 6(c) are our proposed methods in VGG and ResNet models. The combination of cross-one layer and cross-two layers is named as “P1(Cross two layers)”. Furthermore, the combination of cross-one layer, cross-two layers, and cross-three layers is named as “P1(Cross three layers)”.

Fig. 6.

(a) Cross one layer. (b) Cross two layers. (c) Cross three layers.

The simulation results of VGG models are shown in Table 4. The result of S-DNN is set as the baseline. Compared with the baseline, the method of “P1(Cross two layers)” and “P1 (Cross three layers)” achieves a low performance in the testing result. Additionally, “P1 (Cross three layers)” have an increase in performance of 0.4% compared with FSP [Reference Yim, Joo, Bae and Kim6]. Subsequently, let us see the deeper architecture ResNet as shown in Table 5. Moreover, the methods of “P1(Cross two layers)” and “P1 (Cross three layers)” achieve a low performance in the testing results. The “P1 (Cross three layers)” have an increase in performance of 0.13% compared with FSP [Reference Yim, Joo, Bae and Kim6].

Table 4.

Different proposed method of cross matrix (VGG-11->6) with CIFAR-100. T-DNN: VGG-11, S-DNN: VGG-6.

Table 5.

Different proposed method of cross matrix (ResNet-32->8) with CIFAR-100. T-DNN: ResNet-32, S-DNN: ResNet-8.

Additionally, the different choices of the cross-layer matrix are shown in Fig. 7. Figure 7 (a) represents the ‘original’ method FSP [Reference Yim, Joo, Bae and Kim6]. Figures 7(b)–7(d) are our proposed methods with MobileNet model. The combination of cross-one layer and cross-two layers are named as “P1(Cross two layers)”. Additionally, the combination of cross-one layer, cross-two layers, and cross-three layers is termed as “P1(Cross three layers)”. Finally, the combination of cross-one layer, cross-two layers, cross-three layers, and cross-four layers is named as “P1(Cross four layers)” .

Fig. 7.

(a) Cross-one layer. (b) Cross-two layers.(c) Cross-three layers. (d)Cross-four layers.

The results of MobileNet model are shown in Table 6. Compared with the baseline, the methods of ’‘P1(Cross two layers)” and ‘’P1 (Cross three layers)” achieve a low performance in the testing result. Furthermore, “P1 (Cross three layers)” has increased performance of 3.38% compared with FSP [Reference Yim, Joo, Bae and Kim6].

Table 6.

Different proposed method of cross matrix (MobileNet-16>9) with ImageNet64*64. T-DNN: MobileNet-16, S-DNN: MobileNet-9.

2) Influence of adding KL Divergence

The illustration of adding KL Divergence as our second-order loss function is shown in Fig. 8. We believe that the student's model can get full of knowledge from the teacher's model by being similar to the teacher's distribution. The combination of FSP [Reference Yim, Joo, Bae and Kim6] and adding KL Divergence is named as “P2 (KL Divergence)”. First, let us see the result of VGG models as shown in Table 7. Additionally, the result of S-DNN is set as the baseline. We have two competitors. The first is the proposed Hinton [Reference Hinton, Vinyals and Dean7] approach and our basis FSP [Reference Yim, Joo, Bae and Kim6]. It is demonstrated that adding KL Divergence yields a 1.54% increase over the competitor FSP [Reference Yim, Joo, Bae and Kim6]. Furthermore, the experimental results of ResNet are shown in Table 8. It indicates that adding KL Divergence yields a 1.54% increase over the competitor FSP [Reference Yim, Joo, Bae and Kim6].

Fig. 8.

Illustration of using KL Divergence.

Table 7.

Differential of adding KL Divergence (VGG-11>9) with CIFAR-100. T-DNN: VGG-11, S-DNN: VGG-6.

Table 8.

Differential of adding KL Divergence (ResNet-32->8) with CIFAR-100. T-DNN: ResNet-32, S-DNN: ResNet-8.

On ImageNet64*64, the experimental results of MobileNet models are shown in Table 9. We have two competitors, the first is the proposed Hinton [Reference Hinton, Vinyals and Dean7] approach and our basis FSP [Reference Yim, Joo, Bae and Kim6]. It is shown that adding KL Divergence that obtains a 2.59% increase over the competitor FSP [Reference Yim, Joo, Bae and Kim6].

Table 9.

Differential of adding KL Divergence (MobileNet-16>9) with ImageNet64*64. T-DNN: MobileNet-16, S-DNN: MobileNet-9.

3) Offline ensemble

In this section, we will discuss the influence of the number of multiple pre-trained teachers as shown in Fig. 9. Figure 9(a) uses one pre-trained teacher as FSP [Reference Yim, Joo, Bae and Kim6]. Figures 9(b) and 9(c) represent two pre-trained teachers and three pre-trained teachers named as “P3 (two teachers)” and “P3(three teachers)”, respectively. First, let us see the result of VGG model in Table 10. Additionally, the result of S-DNN is set as the baseline. From Table 10, we find that using more pre-trained teachers with stochastic mean can increase the Top-1 accuracy. It is shown that offline ensemble yields a 1.66% increase over the competitor FSP [Reference Yim, Joo, Bae and Kim6]. In addition, let us see the deeper model ResNet. From Table 11, we can also find that using more teachers can increase the Top-1 accuracy. It is demonstrated that offline ensemble obtains a 1.31% increase over the competitor FSP [Reference Yim, Joo, Bae and Kim6]. Finally, let us see the result of MobileNet models as shown in Table 12. It is demonstrated that adding KL Divergence yields a 2.59% increase over the competitor FSP [Reference Yim, Joo, Bae and Kim6].

Fig. 9.

(a) One pre-trained teacher. (b) Two pre-trained teachers. (c) Three pre-trained teachers.

Table 10.

Different numbers of teachers (VGG-11->6) with CIFAR-100. T-DNN: VGG-11, S-DNN: VGG-6.

Table 11.

Different numbers of teachers (ResNet-32->8) with CIFAR-100. T-DNN: ResNet-32, S-DNN: ResNet-8.

Table 12.

Different numbers of teachers (MobileNet-16->9) with ImageNet64*64. T-DNN: MobileNet-16, S-DNN: MobileNet-9.

4) Combination of proposed methods

By analyzing prior work, we want to try a combination of proposed methods. The combination of crossing one layer, adding KL Divergence and offline ensemble is shown in Tables 13 and 14.

Table 13.

Combination of proposed methods (VGG-11->6) with CIFAR-100. T-DNN: VGG-11, S-DNN: VGG-6. P1: cross-three layers. P2: KL Divergence. P3: three pre-trained teachers.

Table 14.

Different proposed method of cross matrix (ResNet-32->8) with CIFAR-100. T-DNN: ResNet-32, S-DNN: ResNet-8. P1: cross-three layers. P2: KL Divergence. P3: three pre-trained teachers.

First, let us see the result of VGG with the combination of crossing three layers, adding KL Divergence and offline ensemble. From Table 13, we can see that by adding the proposed method increases the Top-1 accuracy. It is shown that the combination of proposed method gets an increase of 2.27% than FSP [Reference Yim, Joo, Bae and Kim6]. Second, let us see the deeper ResNet model with the combination of proposed methods. From Table 14, we can see that by adding the proposed method to increase the Top-1 accuracy. It is shown that the combination of proposed method gets an increase of 2.98% than FSP [Reference Yim, Joo, Bae and Kim6]. Finally, from Table 15 we can see that by adding proposed method to increase the Top-1 accuracy, the combination of proposed method get 4.04% increase than FSP [Reference Yim, Joo, Bae and Kim6].

Table 15.

Combination of proposed methods (MobileNet) with ImageNet64*64. T-DNN: MobileNet-16, S-DNN: MobileNet-9. P1: cross-three layers. P2: KL Divergence. P3: three pre-trained teachers.

D) Comparison with other work

With the same compression on S-DNN, it can be seen that our proposed method got the state-of-the-art results on VGG and ResNet models compared with the competitors [Reference Yim, Joo, Bae and Kim6, Reference Hinton, Vinyals and Dean7, Reference Lee, Kim and Song10, Reference Park, Kim, Lu and Cho11]. As we can see in Table 16, the result of our proposed method achieves a 66.67% Top-1 accuracy with a 2.08x compression rate and 3.5x computation rate. Additionally, the result of our proposed method achieves a 68.45% Top-1 accuracy with a 6.11x compression rate and 5.27x computation rate as shown in Table 17. Furthermore, we can see in Table 18 that the result of our proposed method achieves a 49.86% Top-1 accuracy with a 1.59x compression rate and 2.05x computation rate.

Table 16.

Computation, parameters, and average Top-1 accuracy comparison with VGG-11 and VGG-6 on CIFAR-100. T-DNN: VGG-11, S-DNN: VGG-6.

Table 17.

Computation, parameters, and average Top-1 accuracy comparison with ResNet-32 and ResNet-8 on CIFAR-100. T-DNN: ResNet-32, S-DNN: ResNet-8.

Table 18.

Computation, parameters, and average Top-1 accuracy comparison with ResNet-32 and ResNet-8 on CIFAR-100. T-DNN: ResNet-32, S-DNN: ResNet-8.