Managing the Performance/Error Tradeoff of Floating-point Intensive Applications
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Modern embedded systems are becoming more reliant on real-valued arithmetic as they employ mathematically complex vision algorithms and sensor signal processing. Double-precision floating point is the most commonly used precision in computer vision algorithm implementations. A single-precision floating point can provide a performance boost due to less memory transfers, less cache occupancy, and relatively faster mathematical operations on some architectures. However, adopting it can result in loss of accuracy. Identifying which parts of the program can run in single-precision floating point with low impact on error is a manual and tedious process. In this paper, we propose an automatic approach to identify parts of the program that have a low impact on error using shadow-value analysis. Our approach provides the user with a performance/error tradeoff, using which the user can decide how much accuracy can be sacrificed in return for performance improvement. We illustrate the impact of the approach using a well known implementation of Apriltag detection used in robotics vision. We demonstrate that an average 1.3x speedup can be achieved with no impact on tag detection, and a 1.7x speedup with only 4% false negatives.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it