MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2952857977 · doi:10.1109/dac.2018.8465915

Loom: Exploiting Weight and Activation Precisions to Accelerate Convolutional Neural Networks

2018· article· en· W2952857977 on OpenAlexaff
Sayeh Sharify, Alberto Delmás Lascorz, Kevin Siu, Patrick Judd, Andreas Moshovos

Bibliographic record

Venue2018 55th ACM/ESDA/IEEE Design Automation Conference (DAC) · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Neural Network Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConvolutional neural networkComputer scienceLOOMGranularityInferenceEnergy (signal processing)Parallel computingLayer (electronics)Deep neural networksArtificial neural networkAlgorithmArtificial intelligenceMathematicsStatisticsOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Loom (LM), a hardware inference accelerator for Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs) is presented. In LM every bit of data precision that can be saved translates to proportional performance gains. For both weights and activations LM exploits profile-derived per layer precisions. However, at runtime LM further trims activation precisions at a much smaller than a layer granularity. On average, across several image classification CNNs and for a configuration that can perform the equivalent of 12816b × 16b multiply-accumulate operations per cycle LM outperforms a state-of-the-art bit-parallel accelerator [3] by 3.19× without any loss in accuracy while being 2.59× more energy efficient. LM can trade-off accuracy for additional improvements in execution performance and energy efficiency and compares favorably to an accelerator that targeted only activation precisions.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.003

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 head0.096
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.214 · 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

Citations88
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue2018 55th ACM/ESDA/IEEE Design Automation Conference (DAC)Same topicAdvanced Neural Network ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207