Impact of Approximate Multipliers on VGG Deep Learning Network
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents a study on the applicability of using approximate multipliers to enhance the performance of the VGGNet deep learning network. Approximate multipliers are known to have reduced power, area, and delay with the cost of an inaccuracy in output. Improving the performance of the VGGNet in terms of power, area, and speed can be achieved by replacing exact multipliers with approximate multipliers as demonstrated in this paper. The simulation results show that approximate multiplication has a very little impact on the accuracy of VGGNet. However, using approximate multipliers can achieve significant performance gains. The simulation was completed using different generated error matrices that mimic the inaccuracy that approximate multipliers introduce to the data. The impact of various ranges of the mean relative error and the standard deviation was tested. The well-known data sets CIFAR-10 and CIFAR100 were used for testing the network's classification accuracy. The impact on the accuracy was assessed by simulating approximate multiplication in all the layers in the first set of tests, and in selective layers in the second set of tests. Using approximate multipliers in all the layers leads to very little impact on the network's accuracy. In addition, an alternative approach is to use a hybrid of exact and approximate multipliers. In the hybrid approach, 39.14% of the deeper layer's multiplications can be approximate while having a reduced negligible impact on the network's accuracy.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".