Module-wise Adaptive Distillation for Multimodality Foundation Models

Pre-trained multimodal foundation models have demonstrated remarkable generalizability but pose challenges for deployment due to their large sizes. One effective approach to reducing their sizes is layerwise distillation, wherein small student models are trained to match the hidden representations of large teacher models at each layer. Motivated by our observation that certain architecture components, referred to as modules, contribute more significantly to the student's performance than others, we propose to track the contributions of individual modules by recording the loss decrement after distillation each module and choose the module with a greater contribution to distill more frequently. Such an approach can be naturally formulated as a multi-armed bandit (MAB) problem, where modules and loss decrements are considered as arms and rewards, respectively. We then develop a modified-Thompson sampling algorithm named OPTIMA to address the nonstationarity of module contributions resulting from model updating. Specifically, we leverage the observed contributions in recent history to estimate the changing contribution of each module and select modules based on these estimations to maximize the cumulative contribution. We evaluate the effectiveness of OPTIMA through distillation experiments on various multimodal understanding and image captioning tasks, using the CoCa-Large model (Yu et al., 2022) as the teacher model.

Paper

Similar papers

Peer review

Reviewer 3XdA6/10 · confidence 3/52023-07-07

Summary

The paper proposes a method called OPTIMA for reducing the size of pre-trained multimodal models. It uses layerwise distillation to train smaller student models to match the hidden representations of larger teacher models. The authors track the contributions of individual modules and choose modules with greater contributions to distill more frequently. OPTIMA leverages a modified-Thompson sampling algorithm to estimate changing module contributions and selects modules to maximize cumulative contribution. Experimental results on multimodal understanding and image captioning tasks demonstrate the effectiveness of OPTIMA.

Strengths

The paper works on an important problem: distilling large-scale multi-modal foundation models. The authors explored a relatively new perspective toward this goal, which is Module-wise Adaptive Distillation. A smart and automatic algorithm, OPTIMA, is proposed to assist in the process, which enabled a balance between the distillation of different model components, defined by which modality (or both) it operates on. This is overall a new direction for a meaningful topic. In the presented results, the proposed method outperforms the vanilla layer-wise distillation. The paper is well written in general. Experimental details are provided, as well as ablation studies on the design choices in OPTIMA.

Weaknesses

The authors did not provide enough evidence/motivation for why OPTIMA is only applied to CoCa. The authors are expected to make the limitation of the proposed method clear. Especially, from the results shown in Table 1, we see that when comparing with other baseline distillation methods, either the DistilVLM12×384 achieves the highest score for the two tasks reported, with the least number of parameters. This leaves doubts about the significance of the work. Also, the authors chose to report the Median among the 5 repetitions as results in Table 1, which is not a common choice. I'd hope to see a comparison under the mean + std.

Questions

Minor: citations in the Appendix are not compiled correctly.

Rating

6: Weak Accept: Technically solid, moderate-to-high impact paper, with no major concerns with respect to evaluation, resources, reproducibility, ethical considerations.

Confidence

3: You are fairly confident in your assessment. It is possible that you did not understand some parts of the submission or that you are unfamiliar with some pieces of related work. Math/other details were not carefully checked.

Soundness

3 good

Presentation

3 good

Contribution

3 good

Limitations

Author provided discussion on the limitation.

Reviewer fQyt5/10 · confidence 4/52023-07-07

Summary

This paper proposes a novel knowledge distillation (KD) method for multimodal foundation models. Motivated by the observation that distilling different modules yields distinct performance, the authors propose to dynamically choose an optimal combination of the modules for KD. Specifically, the choice of the optimal combination is formulated as a multi-armed bandit (MAB) problem. Experimental results demonstrate that the proposed method outperforms other KD baselines.

Strengths

1. The authors introduce an interesting topic on the selection of submodules for KD with multimodal models. Recently, one similar approach has been proposed for distilling image classification models [1]. 2. The paper is clearly written and easy to follow. 3. The ablation study appears to be sufficient. 4. The experimental results shows the effectiveness of the propsed method.

Weaknesses

1. **Limitation:** The model architectures adopted in this paper are limited to CoCa-base models. However, several multimodal large models have been proposed recently, such as [2-4]. I believe that if the proposed method can be applied to other foundation models, it will be of great interest to the community. Besides, I am curious to know if the proposed method can be applied to settings where the teacher and the student have different architectures. 2. **Experiment:** What is the training cost of the proposed method compared to other baselines, e.g., training time, GPU memory usage, etc.? > [1] Song, Jie, et al. "Spot-adaptive knowledge distillation." IEEE Transactions on Image Processing 31 (2022): 3359-3370. > > [2] Yang, Ziyi, et al. "i-code: An integrative and composable multimodal learning framework." Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence. Vol. 37. No. 9. 2023. > > [3] Lu, Jiasen, et al. "Unified-io: A unified model for vision, language, and multi-modal tasks." arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.08916 (2022). > > [4] Shen, Yongliang, et al. "Hugginggpt: Solving ai tasks with chatgpt and its friends in huggingface." arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.17580 (2023).

Questions

The questions are listed in the "weaknesses" section.

Rating

5: Borderline accept: Technically solid paper where reasons to accept outweigh reasons to reject, e.g., limited evaluation. Please use sparingly.

Confidence

4: You are confident in your assessment, but not absolutely certain. It is unlikely, but not impossible, that you did not understand some parts of the submission or that you are unfamiliar with some pieces of related work.

Soundness

3 good

Presentation

3 good

Contribution

3 good

Limitations

The authors have discussed the limitations of the proposed method.

Reviewer 8iuR5/10 · confidence 4/52023-07-09

Summary

This work proposed a new knowledge distillation method for multimodule multimodality models. This work pointed out that different modality modules contribute differently to the model performance, and it proposed to sample different modality modules for distillation during training. The paper proposed a multi-armed badit based method to adaptively select modules during distillation. The method is applied to CoCa model and shows better performance than baselines on multiple datasets

Strengths

1. The paper is well motivated. It makes sense and is inspiring to show that different modules have different contributions in the knowledge distillation process. Adaptively selecting different modules for distillation could lead to better performance. 2. The proposed method shows better performance than the baselines. There are thorough ablation study to show the performance of different module selection strategies, which helps the reader to better understand the effectiveness of the method.

Weaknesses

1. I have some questions about some details. In Table 1, how is the CoCa-Tiny baselines finetuned? Are they finetuned by Image+Text+Multi distillation? 2. It is hard to find a fair comparison in Table 1. The methods are based on different structures and different teacher models. 3. The only fair comparison seems to be the comparison with CoCa-Tiny at the third section in Table 1. However, as explained in Q1, one thing is that it is not clear how these beselines are obtained, another is that the improvements seem to be marginal, mostly within 0.5%. 4. In Figure 3, it also shows that the proposed method is only slightly better than the trivial Image+Multi selection strategy, while being much more complicated. 5. The method is only applied to CoCa. It would be better to show the effectiveness on more models, such BLIP2.

Questions

Pleae see the weakness part

Rating

5: Borderline accept: Technically solid paper where reasons to accept outweigh reasons to reject, e.g., limited evaluation. Please use sparingly.

Confidence

4: You are confident in your assessment, but not absolutely certain. It is unlikely, but not impossible, that you did not understand some parts of the submission or that you are unfamiliar with some pieces of related work.

Soundness

3 good

Presentation

2 fair

Contribution

2 fair

Limitations

Yes

Reviewer zaxt6/10 · confidence 2/52023-07-21

Summary

They use layer-wise distillation to reduce model size for multi-modal foundation models. They develop a modified-Thompson sampling algorithm named OPTIMA to address the non-stationarity of module contributions resulting from model updating.

Strengths

The problem is valuable to reduce size for large models. The paper is good in writing. The analysis is interesting.

Weaknesses

The result is based on COCA, experiments on other foundation models are needed. The improvement over baseline is not large.

Questions

No.

Rating

6: Weak Accept: Technically solid, moderate-to-high impact paper, with no major concerns with respect to evaluation, resources, reproducibility, ethical considerations.

Confidence

2: You are willing to defend your assessment, but it is quite likely that you did not understand the central parts of the submission or that you are unfamiliar with some pieces of related work. Math/other details were not carefully checked.

Soundness

3 good

Presentation

3 good

Contribution

3 good

Limitations

No.

Reviewer 1KcH5/10 · confidence 3/52023-08-03

Summary

This paper proposes a Module-wise Adaptive Distillation method, OPTIMA, for a multimodal foundation model based on a modified multi-arm bandit algorithm. Comparisons with baseline multimodal pre-trainings and multimodal distillation methods on four different multimodal datasets demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed method.

Strengths

- the paper is well-written and the idea is clearly presented. - the idea of using multi-arm bandit to guide distillation is interesting and the effective, as shown in the experiments.

Weaknesses

- Concerning equation 6, I understand that for the sake of fair comparison, the authors choose to compare the loss change of the full model. However, for example, is that reasonable to use the change in $\mathcal{L}_{hidn}$ of "Img" to evaluate the reward of the "Txt" module in the case when we only distill the "Txt" module in the current round. - the discussion should be elaborated; please look at the Questions below. - it is mentioned in the introduction that one primary motivation of this paper is that "interference from other modules may affect the training of this specific module." However, later results did not reflect this point. In most cases, the best way is to distill all three modules.

Questions

- In Fig.4, the loss on the dev set of the NLVR2 dataset is increasing, yet the performance of the distilled model is good (Table 1, the performance of CoCa-Tiny12 (OPTIMA) is close to the one of CoCa-Large). Could you provide a more in-depth discussion concerning this interesting behavior? - In Fig.5, the behavior of rewards seems to be somehow inconsistent with the results in Fig.3. For example, on the NLVR2 dataset, the reward of "Img+Txt" is always higher than "Img"; however, the test accuracy of "Img+Txt" is considerably lower than the one of "Img." Do you have an explanation? - In this paper, the modules are coarse-grained, corresponding to the individual modality or the fusion. Would considering fine-grained modules be beneficial?

Rating

5: Borderline accept: Technically solid paper where reasons to accept outweigh reasons to reject, e.g., limited evaluation. Please use sparingly.

Confidence

3: You are fairly confident in your assessment. It is possible that you did not understand some parts of the submission or that you are unfamiliar with some pieces of related work. Math/other details were not carefully checked.

Soundness

3 good

Presentation

3 good

Contribution

2 fair

Limitations

Limitations have been addressed in the paper.

Authorsrebuttal2023-08-13

Looking Forward to Your Feedback

Dear reviewers, We appreciate your insightful reviews and detailed comments. We hope our responses address your concerns. Please feel free to raise further questions or concerns after you read our rebuttal. We hope to catch and answer them during the discussion period. Thanks, Authors

Authorsrebuttal2023-08-16

Follow-up on the rebuttal

Dear Reviewer 8iuR, As we are approaching the midpoint of the discussion period, we would like to cordially inquire about the extent to which we have successfully addressed the concerns outlined in your review. Should there be any lingering points that require further attention, please rest assured that we are enthusiastic about the opportunity to provide comprehensive responses to any subsequent queries or comments you may have. Your constructive input remains invaluable to us, and we appreciate your dedication to enhancing the quality of our manuscript. Thank you for your time and consideration. Best, Authors

Authorsrebuttal2023-08-16

Dear Reviewer 1KcH, As we are approaching the midpoint of the discussion period, we would like to cordially inquire about the extent to which we have successfully addressed the concerns outlined in your review. Should there be any lingering points that require further attention, please rest assured that we are enthusiastic about the opportunity to provide comprehensive responses to any subsequent queries or comments you may have. Your constructive input remains invaluable to us, and we appreciate your dedication to enhancing the quality of our manuscript. Thank you for your time and consideration. Best, Authors

Reviewer 1KcH2023-08-18

Thanks

Thank you for the detailed reply, which enabled me to appreciate the paper better. I have no further questions.

Authorsrebuttal2023-08-18

Thank you for reading our responses and providing valuable feedback! If the rebuttal has addressed your concerns, we would really appreciate it if you would consider raising your score.

Authorsrebuttal2023-08-16

Dear Reviewer zaxt, As we are approaching the midpoint of the discussion period, we would like to cordially inquire about the extent to which we have successfully addressed the concerns outlined in your review. Should there be any lingering points that require further attention, please rest assured that we are enthusiastic about the opportunity to provide comprehensive responses to any subsequent queries or comments you may have. Your constructive input remains invaluable to us, and we appreciate your dedication to enhancing the quality of our manuscript. Thank you for your time and consideration. Best, Authors

Authorsrebuttal2023-08-16

Dear Reviewer 3XdA, As we are approaching the midpoint of the discussion period, we would like to cordially inquire about the extent to which we have successfully addressed the concerns outlined in your review. Should there be any lingering points that require further attention, please rest assured that we are enthusiastic about the opportunity to provide comprehensive responses to any subsequent queries or comments you may have. Your constructive input remains invaluable to us, and we appreciate your dedication to enhancing the quality of our manuscript. Thank you for your time and consideration. Best, Authors

Reviewer 3XdA2023-08-20

I appreciate the genuine information and the detailed results provided by the authors. The reply does diminish my concern regarding the generalization and significance of the work. In fact, regardless of the scale of the experiments, such work is worth recognization from NeurIPS. I have no other questions about the paper and will also raise my score.

Reviewer fQyt2023-08-18

My main concern is the versatility of the proposed method but the authors fail to provide further results. Therefore, I have to keep my score unchanged.

Reviewer 8iuR2023-08-18

Thanks for the rebuttal

Thanks for the detailed rebuttal. Some of my concerns, such as the fair comparison and applicability to other multimodal models, are not fully addressed, but the author explained that they have tried their best to maintain a fair comparison and it is hard to conduct more experiments on other models during rebuttal. I understand the difficultiese. Given that the adaptive multi-module KD could be a promising method, I would like to increase my socre to boarderline accept.

Authorsrebuttal2023-08-18

We thank the reviewer for providing valuable feedback, appreciating our contributions and raising the score!

Reviewer zaxt2023-08-20

Thanks for the detailed rebuttal.

Thanks for the detailed rebuttal. Part of my concerns are solved. I will keep my score.

Program Chairsdecision2023-09-21

Decision

Accept (poster)

© 2026 NYSGPT2525 LLC