Understanding error propagation in deep learning neural network (DNN) accelerators and 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
Deep learning neural networks (DNNs) have been successful in solving a wide range of machine learning problems. Specialized hardware accelerators have been proposed to accelerate the execution of DNN algorithms for high-performance and energy efficiency. Recently, they have been deployed in datacenters (potentially for business-critical or industrial applications) and safety-critical systems such as self-driving cars. Soft errors caused by high-energy particles have been increasing in hardware systems, and these can lead to catastrophic failures in DNN systems. Traditional methods for building resilient systems, e.g., Triple Modular Redundancy (TMR), are agnostic of the DNN algorithm and the DNN accelerator's architecture. Hence, these traditional resilience approaches incur high overheads, which makes them challenging to deploy. In this paper, we experimentally evaluate the resilience characteristics of DNN systems (i.e., DNN software running on specialized accelerators). We find that the error resilience of a DNN system depends on the data types, values, data reuses, and types of layers in the design. Based on our observations, we propose two efficient protection techniques for DNN systems.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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