MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2905515056 · doi:10.1109/iiswc.2018.8573527

Memory Requirements for Convolutional Neural Network Hardware Accelerators

2018· article· en· W2905515056 on OpenAlexaff
Kevin Siu, Dylan Malone Stuart, Mostafa Mahmoud, Andreas Moshovos

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Neural Network Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceDataflowBandwidth (computing)Memory bandwidthComputer architectureConvolutional neural networkHigh memoryMemory managementDeep learningEmbedded systemComputer hardwareParallel computingArtificial intelligenceSemiconductor memoryComputer network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The rapid pace and successful application of machine learning research and development has seen widespread deployment of deep convolutional neural networks (CNNs). Alongside these algorithmic efforts, the compute- and memory-intensive nature of CNNs has stimulated a large amount of work in the field of hardware acceleration for these networks. In this paper, we profile the memory requirements of CNNs in terms of both on-chip memory size and off-chip memory bandwidth, in order to understand the impact of the memory system on accelerator design. We show that there are fundamental tradeoffs between performance, bandwidth, and on-chip memory. Further, this paper explores how the wide variety of CNNs for different application domains each have fundamentally different characteristics. We show that bandwidth and memory requirements for different networks, and occasionally for different layers within a network, can each vary by multiple orders of magnitude. This makes designing fast and efficient hardware for all CNN applications difficult. To remedy this, we outline heuristic design points that attempt to optimize for select dataflow scenarios.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.001

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.258 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations73
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Neural Network ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207