Paper:
This paper aims to analyze knowledge consistency between pre-trained deep neural networks. We propose a generic definition for knowledge consistency between neural networks at different fuzziness levels. A task-agnostic method is designed to disentangle feature components, which represent the consistent knowledge, from raw intermediate-layer features of each neural network. As a generic tool, our method can be broadly used for different applications. In preliminary experiments, we have used knowledge consistency as a tool to diagnose representations of neural networks. Knowledge consistency provides new insights to explain the success of existing deep-learning techniques, such as knowledge distillation and network compression. More crucially, knowledge consistency can also be used to refine pre-trained networks and boost performance. The code will be released when the paper is accepted.

Review:
The submission proposes a method for extracting "knowledge consistency" in neural networks and using that toward analyzing different aspects of them, eg understanding the representations, explaining knowledge distillation, and analyzing network compression. What's defined as consistent knowledge is essentially the stable parts of representations of different networks trained for the same task (stable-->consistent). I found the submission insightful, well executed, and backed up by many experimental results. 
Strengths: 
A) the proposed concept, extracting the *consistency* among representation of different networks, is interested and using that towards understanding what's going on under-the-hood of neural networks makes sense. I'm not aware of a similar existing method and didn't see one among the citations, so my current assumption is that this proposal is pretty novel. 
B) the extracted representational consistency quantity appears to be meaningful and strong, as authors were able to use it toward explaining several existing phenomena (e.g. knowledge distillation, network compression, etc). 
C) Authors perform extensive experimental studies on various aspects of neural networks in relation to the proposed representational consistency quantity. I applaud the efforts made by authors.  
Improvements/questions:
D) The submission uses a few different phrases in close connection or interchangeably, eg "fuzziness", "order", "linear/nonlinear transformation", "easy/hard to guess/estimation" (see the last 2 paragraphs of page 2). While I understand what the authors are trying to convey, those concepts are not in principle necessarily the same, so some clarification/unification would make the presentation more solid. For instance: nonlinear<--> higher order<-->fuzzy<-->hard to guess. Also guess<-->estimate. 
E) Sec 3 is the most important part of the paper and the technical meat. However, I found it harder to follow compared to the rest of the paper. It probably deserves more than 1 page. Authors could consider smoothing the presentation and adding details even at the cost of slightly extending the length. 
F) I think section 4.2 could walk the reader through more details to make sure the basics are understood, as this is the first time results of the method are being presented. E.g. fig 3 could be analyzed further and the color maps should be defined. 
G) I found the post hoc explanation in the last paragraph of page 6 somewhat dubious. 
H) In the feature refinement experiment (paragraph 2 of sec 4.3), is the process done in a recursive manner (first layer 1, then layer 2, and so on)? Or as a one time process? The former seems stronger. 
I) The consistency quantity is based on comparing different networks trained for the *same task*. Have you considered doing the same among different networks trained for *different tasks*? Would that say something about similarities among tasks and multi-task learning in a fashion similar to the analysis of Taskonomy 2018? 
J) I did not understand "and Beyond" in the title. I'd consider a more directly descriptive title. 
K) Seems like authors define "knowledge" and "visual concept" to be the invariant part of a feature (see paragraph 3 of intro). I don't see a particular problem with that, but a direct statement like 'invariant features' would have resonated with me just fine, while whether we can call that "knowledge" is a matter of (unnecessary) semantics in my opinion. 
=====
Post rebuttal comments: 
Thanks to authors for the detailed response and additions. I read through the comments and skimmed the revised PDF. Overall I preserve my positive rating toward this paper. The updates did improve the paper, but I would recommend the authors to use the camera ready opportunity to further address the original comments especially with respect to the delivery. 
I find the added experiments in multi task learning interesting especially given the time constraints of rebuttal. However the adopted setting is not the strongest case as what is defined to be "two tasks" is basically a superclass classification of a fine grained classifier. More concrete datasets and tasks specifically targeting challenging multi task learning are available now (see the full discussion in the original review). I would recommend taking those into consideration either for more experimentation or calibrating the conclusion made out of the current experiment. 
I recommend acceptance.