Weakness: 1) Although each part of the proposed method is effective, the overall algorithm is still cumbersome. It has multiple stages. In contrast, many of existing pruning methods do not need fine-tuning. 2) Technical details and formulations are limited. It seems that the main novelty reflected in the scheme or procedure novelty. 3) The experimental results are not convincing. The compared methods are few. Although few authors have attempted to prune EfficientNet, other networks can be compressed in experiments such as ResNet. In addition, the performance gains compared with SOTAs are also marginal, which are also within 1%. 4) The paper is poorly written. There are many typos and some are listed as follows: --In caption of Figure 2, “An subset of a network” should be “A subset of a network”. --In Line157 of Page4, “The output output vector” should be “The output vector”. --In Line283 of Page7, “B0V2 as,” should be “B0V2 as teacher,”. --In Line301 of Page7, “due the inconsistencies” should be “due to the inconsistencies”.
2) Technical details and formulations are limited. It seems that the main novelty reflected in the scheme or procedure novelty.