Augmentation-Free Dense Contrastive Knowledge Distillation for Efficient Semantic Segmentation

In recent years, knowledge distillation methods based on contrastive learning have achieved promising results on image classification and object detection tasks. However, in this line of research, we note that less attention is paid to semantic segmentation. Existing methods heavily rely on data augmentation and memory buffer, which entail high computational resource demands when applying them to handle semantic segmentation that requires to preserve high-resolution feature maps for making dense pixel-wise predictions. In order to address this problem, we present Augmentation-free Dense Contrastive Knowledge Distillation (Af-DCD), a new contrastive distillation learning paradigm to train compact and accurate deep neural networks for semantic segmentation applications. Af-DCD leverages a masked feature mimicking strategy, and formulates a novel contrastive learning loss via taking advantage of tactful feature partitions across both channel and spatial dimensions, allowing to effectively transfer dense and structured local knowledge learnt by the teacher model to a target student model while maintaining training efficiency. Extensive experiments on five mainstream benchmarks with various teacher-student network pairs demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach. For instance, the DeepLabV3-Res18|DeepLabV3-MBV2 model trained by Af-DCD reaches 77.03%|76.38% mIOU on Cityscapes dataset when choosing DeepLabV3-Res101 as the teacher, setting new performance records. Besides that, Af-DCD achieves an absolute mIOU improvement of 3.26%|3.04%|2.75%|2.30%|1.42% compared with individually trained counterpart on Cityscapes|Pascal VOC|Camvid|ADE20K|COCO-Stuff-164K. Code is available at https://github.com/OSVAI/Af-DCD

Paper

Similar papers

Peer review

Reviewer wLTq6/10 · confidence 4/52023-06-27

Summary

In this manuscript, the authors propose a effective knowledge distillation framework for semantic segmentation task. Specifically, in addition to traditional knowledge distillation on segmentation masks as well as feature distillation, to better align the dense feature, the authors introduce contrastive learning on both spatial dimension and channel dimension. The proposed Af-DCD loss significantly improves the performance of CNN-based segmentation network via knowledge distillation without data augmentation.

Strengths

1. The motivation is clear, i.e., traditional feature distillation loss is somewhat difficult to contextual information and positional channel-group information. 2. The extensive experiments demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed method. The ablation study and discussion is abundant and valuable. 3. The proposed method is easy to follow.

Weaknesses

1. Intuitively, the proposed Af-DCD loss can align the dense feature independently, therefore the authors could show the ablation study of baseline+L_{Af-DCD} only and compare the results with baseline+L_{fd}.

Questions

See the weakness section.

Rating

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

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 listed the limitation in the supplementary material, i.e., the gain of Af-DCD on Transformer based architecture are not as large as on CNN based architecture. We believe this limitation can be seen as a future direction.

Reviewer vSYf5/10 · confidence 5/52023-06-28

Summary

This paper focuses on knowledge distillation for semantic segmentation and introduces an augmentation-free dense contrastive loss function. The student and teacher feature maps are partitioned into patches, and both spatial and channel contrasting is performed within these local neighborhoods. For contrastive loss, positive/negative feature pairs are formed using tether and student features extracted from the same image without using any augmentations. Experiments were conducted on five segmentation datasets and the proposed approach is shown to perform better than various existing works.

Strengths

Paper was easy to follow. Experiments conducted on several datasets.

Weaknesses

The title and introduction section emphasize "augmentation-free". However, the motivation/need to be "augmentation-free" is not clear to me. In the introduction, the authors claim using augmentations leads to high resource demand which I disagree. The proposed approach passes the same image through teacher and student networks. One could also use the proposed loss function as it is by passing original image to one network and an augmented version of the image to the other network. The computation cost will be almost same except the augmentation operation cost which is usually small compared to the whole forward/backprop cost. In fact, using appropriate augmentations may even be helpful as the model will learn robust features that are invariant to these augmentations. For most of the pixels (other than those that are close to object boundaries), their neighborhood is surrounded by pixels of the same class, and treating them as negatives in contrastive loss is counter-intuitive to me. Ideally for semantic segmentation, we would want pixels of same class to have similar representations so that they can easily be classified to the same class. In line 197, authors mentioned that they use euclidean distances instead of cosine similarity in contrastive loss without providing any explanation. The main contribution of this paper is the contrastive loss function L_{AF-DCD}. All the other loss functions are from prior works. In order to show the effectiveness of this loss function, authors should compare results with and without the proposed loss when all the other loss functions are present, i.e., comparison between (L_kd + L_fd) and (L_kd + L_fd + L_afdkd). Such comparison is not provided in Table (4). Typo: It should be Table. 3 not 4(a) in line 287.

Questions

Why should the proposed approach be augmentation free? The proposed loss can be used with augmentations also. Why euclidean distance in contrastive loss? Current experimental comparisons do not clearly demonstrate the effectiveness of L_{AF-DCD} in the present of all the other losses.

Rating

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

Confidence

5: You are absolutely certain about your assessment. You are very familiar with the related work and checked the math/other details carefully.

Soundness

2 fair

Presentation

3 good

Contribution

2 fair

Limitations

N/A

Reviewer cEUs6/10 · confidence 3/52023-07-05

Summary

This paper points out that existing knowledge distillation methods have been heavily relying on tdata augmentation and memory buffer, which require high computational resources and this is further amplified when it comes to segmentation task that requires relatively higher resolutions of feature maps for processing. To alleviate this complexity, the method called Af-DCD is proposed, which aims to tackle segmentation task by leveraging knowledge distillation based on a novel contrastive learning. More specifically, this method first leverages masked feature mimicking strategy and proposes a novel contrastive learning loss. Experimental results confirm that the proposed method is effective.

Strengths

1. This paper is easy to read and understand. 2. The proposed method achieves the best performance against competitors. 3. Numerous discussions and ablations are presented to validate the choices.

Weaknesses

1. In Table 1 and 2, it seems like ours refers to cumulatively adding all the different methods (SKD, IFVD, CWD and etcs..). The presentation needs improvements. 2. It would be better if the authors cite each methods in Table 1 and 2 (SKD, IFVD..) so that the readers do not have to look up what those abbreviations refer to. 3. In section 4.2, it is only 'stated' that the proposed method performs the best. I don't find any analysis, explanations or reasonings. Moreover, Although FLOPs and Params are also included, there is no texts covering them. 4. In line with section 4.2, section 4.3 and 4.4 also lack explanations or reasoning. At least it is not sufficient. These sections are simply stating what the table or figure shows without sufficient analysis or attempts to deliver insights.

Questions

See weaknesses above.

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

2 fair

Presentation

2 fair

Contribution

2 fair

Limitations

Limitations are propoerly addressed in Section E.

Reviewer YQfC6/10 · confidence 4/52023-07-06

Summary

This paper proposes a novel knowledge distillation methods for semantic segmentation, called Augmentation-Free Dense Contrastive Knowledge Distillation(Af-DCD). Af-DCD is a new attempt on the usage of contrastive learning in the task of knowledge distillation for semantic segmentation, which alleviate the problem of high computational resource brought by data augmentation and memory buffer. Af-DCD utilizes feature partitions across both channel and spatial dimensions, allowing to effectively transfer dense and structured local knowledge learnt by the teacher model to a target student model while maintaining training efficiency. Experimental results on mainstream benchmarks including demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed Af-DCD.

Strengths

1.The experiments are sufficient. A lot of experiments and visual analysis have proved the effectiveness and superior performance of the proposed Af-DCD. 2. The design of Af-DCD is clever and makes use of the structural information of teachers from the aspects of both channel and space. 3. The overall experiment is solid and the code is available, which is nice.

Weaknesses

1. The organization of reference is poor. Reference is not added to specific methods in the table. And there is no reference for MaskKD in the whole paper, which actually refers to [17], which is confusing. The instruction for CKD in section2 actually is the instruction for CWD. 2. Some ablation studies are missing. For example, the lack of combination of Channel Contrasting and Spatial Contrasting in Table 4(a), the choice of function d in formula 7. 3. No distillation experiment of transformer-based structure has been carried out, and it is explained in the appendix that the transformer-based structure gains little improvement from Af-DCD, which limits the generality of Af-DCD.

Questions

1. Is Omni-Contrasting necessary? The combination of Channel Contrasting and Spatial Contrasting in Table 4(a) is needed to demonstrate the superiority of Omni-Contrasting. 2. Please add some ablation studies on the choice of the function d in formula 7, which can not only help to screen the appropriate function but also increase interpretability.

Rating

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

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

3 good

Limitations

NA

Reviewer YQfC2023-08-18

I have read the authors' response. The authors "agree with" many of the weaknesses. In this stage, I would like to see more "rebuttal". Despite the interesting idea of the specific designed unsupervised method for semantic segmentation, this paper need further improvement. So I tend to slightly decrease my rating.

Authorsrebuttal2023-08-18

Extra Responses to Your Replying to Our Rebuttal

We sincerely appreciate your replying to our rebuttal. Among all your mentioned questions and weaknesses, **in the rebuttal we faithfully agree with two weaknesses of them** and also provide our responses to address both: **(a)** the first weakness on improving reference organization (**we did not miss any related paper in our original submission**) has already been well corrected in the rebuttal, as we believe your suggestions/comments are truly helpful; **(b)** the other weakness about the main limitation of our method **was frankly pointed out by ourselves and discussed in our original submission**, and we admit it again in the rebuttal and provide pilot experiments and analysis for a better study of it. **We believe** that all the other your mentioned questions and weaknesses have been well addressed, demonstrating the effectiveness of our method. Considering the above facts, our rebuttal is decent and honest-to-truth (but not arguing-against-truth), to the best of our understanding. We sincerely hope you can consider the aforementioned factors in final rating. Looking forward to your reply.

Reviewer YQfC2023-08-21

Thanks for the authors' response. I made my rating score mainly based on the original submission and the rebuttal. I will keep my score. And I suggest the authors improve the final version.

Authorsrebuttal2023-08-21

Thanks for the Recognition of Our Work

We are sincerely appreciated that you keep your score and tend to accept our paper. We will carefully revise and improve the final manuscript of our work w.r.t. your suggestions and our responses. Thanks again for your very thorough and constructive comments, time and patience.

Authorsrebuttal2023-08-18

Thanks for the Recognition of Our Rebuttal

Thank you so much for the recognition of our responses. We are glad to see that you tend to accept our paper. We will make more efforts to improve our paper further. Many thanks for your constructive comments, time and patience.

Reviewer vSYf2023-08-18

Thank you for the rebuttal.

Thank you for the rebuttal and the additional ablation studies. The rebuttal address most of my concerns and I increased my rating to 'borderline accept'.

Authorsrebuttal2023-08-18

Thanks for the Recognition of Our Rebuttal

Thank you so much for the recognition of our responses. We are glad to see that you have raised your score. We will continue to improve experimental comparisons, discussions, and etc., so as to further improve our paper during the final paper revision. Many thanks for your constructive comments, time and patience.

Area Chair Q8np2023-08-18

Thank the authors for the rebuttal. PCs and I have reminded the reviewers to respond to the rebuttals as soon as possible. The final decision will depend on both the reviews and rebuttal. @Reviewers: This message is yet another reminder. Please try to respond to the rebuttal asap. --AC

Authorsrebuttal2023-08-21

Genuinely Looking Forward to Your Feedback

Dear Reviewer cEUs, Thanks again for your comments and time. As the deadline for the author-reviewer discussion phase is approaching by today, we sincerely hope to hear your feedback to see if our responses solve your concerns. The merits of our work have been consistently recognized by you and all three other reviewers. On the whole, **all your concerns refer to improving the presentation of "Section 4 Experiments"**. To the best of our understanding, we believe that our responses should have cleared your concerns. We genuinely hope you could check our responses, and kindly let us know your valuable feedback. We would be happy to provide any additional clarifications that you may need. Best regards, Authors

Program Chairsdecision2023-09-21

Decision

Accept (poster)

© 2026 NYSGPT2525 LLC