Improving the Accuracy and Hardware Efficiency of Neural Networks Using Approximate Multipliers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Improving the accuracy of a neural network (NN) usually requires using larger hardware that consumes more energy. However, the error tolerance of NNs and their applications allow approximate computing techniques to be applied to reduce implementation costs. Given that multiplication is the most resource-intensive and power-hungry operation in NNs, more economical approximate multipliers (AMs) can significantly reduce hardware costs. In this article, we show that using AMs can also improve the NN accuracy by introducing noise. We consider two categories of AMs: 1) deliberately designed and 2) Cartesian genetic programing (CGP)-based AMs. The exact multipliers in two representative NNs, a multilayer perceptron (MLP) and a convolutional NN (CNN), are replaced with approximate designs to evaluate their effect on the classification accuracy of the Mixed National Institute of Standards and Technology (MNIST) and Street View House Numbers (SVHN) data sets, respectively. Interestingly, up to 0.63% improvement in the classification accuracy is achieved with reductions of 71.45% and 61.55% in the energy consumption and area, respectively. Finally, the features in an AM are identified that tend to make one design outperform others with respect to NN accuracy. Those features are then used to train a predictor that indicates how well an AM is likely to work in an NN.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".