MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2740088230 · doi:10.1109/asap.2017.7995262

Real-time object detection in software with custom vector instructions and algorithm changes

2017· article· en· W2740088230 on OpenAlexafffund
J.R. Edwards, Guy Lemieux

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Image and Video Retrieval Techniques
Canadian institutionsVector Institute
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsSpeedupComputer scienceField-programmable gate arrayHardware accelerationSoftwareVHDLPipeline (software)Computer hardwareARM architectureEmbedded systemAlgorithmParallel computingOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Real-time vision applications place stringent performance requirements on embedded systems. To meet performance requirements, embedded systems often require hardware implementations. This approach is unfavorable as hardware development can be difficult to debug, time-consuming, and require extensive skill. This paper presents a case study of accelerating face detection, often part of a complex image processing pipeline, using a software/hardware hybrid approach. As a baseline, the algorithm is initially run on a scalar ARM Cortex-A9 application processor found on a Xilinx Zynq device. Next, using a previously designed vector engine implemented in the FPGA fabric, the algorithm is vectorized, using only standard vector instructions, to achieve a 25× speedup. Then, we accelerate the critical inner loops by adding two hardware-assisted custom vector instructions for an additional 10× speedup, yielding 248× speedup over the initial Cortex-A9 baseline. Collectively, the custom instructions require fewer than 800 lines of VHDL code, including comments and blank lines. Compared to previous hardware-only face detection systems, our work is 1.5 to 6.8 times faster. This approach demonstrates that good performance can be obtained from software-only vectorization, and a small amount of custom hardware can provide a significant acceleration boost.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.995
Threshold uncertainty score0.326

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.252 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Image and Video Retrieval TechniquesFrench-language works237,207