Paper:
Mean teachers are better role models: Weight-averaged consistency targets improve semi-supervised deep learning results
The recently proposed Temporal Ensembling has achieved state-of-the-art results in several semi-supervised learning benchmarks. It maintains an exponential moving average of label predictions on each training example, and penalizes predictions that are inconsistent with this target. However, because the targets change only once per epoch, Temporal Ensembling becomes unwieldy when learning large datasets. To overcome this problem, we propose Mean Teacher, a method that averages model weights instead of label predictions. As an additional benefit, Mean Teacher improves test accuracy and enables training with fewer labels than Temporal Ensembling. Without changing the network architecture, Mean Teacher achieves an error rate of 4.35% on SVHN with 250 labels, outperforming Temporal Ensembling trained with 1000 labels. We also show that a good network architecture is crucial to performance. Combining Mean Teacher and Residual Networks, we improve the state of the art on CIFAR-10 with 4000 labels from 10.55% to 6.28%, and on ImageNet 2012 with 10% of the labels from 35.24% to 9.11%.

Review:
Summary-
This paper shows that an exponential moving average (in parameter space) of
models produced during SGD training of neural networks can be used as a good
teacher model for the student model which corresponds to the last (current) SGD
iterate. The teacher model is used to provide a target (softmax probabilities)
which is regressed to by the student model on both labelled and unlabelled
data. This additional loss serves as a regularizer. In other words, the model
is being trained to be consistent with its Polyak-averaged version.
Furthermore, noise is injected into both the student and teacher models to
increase the regularization effect (similar motivation as dropout and other
related methods). This is shown to be more effective than (1) Just using noise
(and no moving average), and (2) using a moving average over softmax
probabilities (not parameters) which is updated once every epoch.
Strengths-
- The proposed teacher model is a convenient one to maintain. It just requires keeping a moving average.
- The additional computational cost is just that of a forward prop and benefits seem to be worth it (at least for small amounts of labelled data).
- The supplementary material provides enough experimental details.
Weakness-
- Comparison to other semi-supervised approaches : Other approaches such as variants of Ladder networks would be relevant models to compare to.
Questions/Comments-
- In Table 3, what is the difference between \Pi and \Pi (ours) ?
- In Table 3, is EMA-weighting used for other baseline models ("Supervised", \Pi, etc) ? To ensure a fair comparison, it would be good to know that all the models being compared to make use of the EMA benefits.
- The proposed model benefits from two factors : noise and keeping an exponential moving average. It would be good to see how much each factor contributes on its own. The \Pi model captures just the noise part, so it would be useful to know how much gain can be obtained by just using a noise-free exponential moving average.
- If averaging in parameter space is being used, it seems that it should be possible to apply the consistency cost in the intermediate layers of the model as well. That could potentially provide a richer consistency gradient. Was this tried ?
Minor comments and typos-
- In the abstract : "The recently proposed Temporal Ensembling has  ...  ": Please cite.
- "when learning large datasets." -> "when learning on large datasets."
- "zero-dimensional data points of the input space": It may not be accurate to say that the data points are zero-dimensional.
- "barely applying",  " barely replicating" : "barely" -> "merely"
- "softmax output of a model does not provide a good Bayesian approximation outside training data". Bayesian approximation to what ? Please explain. Any model will have some more generalization error outside training data. Is there another source of error being referred to here ?
Overall-
The paper proposes a simple and effective way of using unlabelled data and
improving generalization with labelled data. The most attractive property is
probably the low overhead of using this in practice, so it is quite likely that
this approach could be impactful and widely used.