Stride 2 1-D, 2-D, and 3-D Winograd for Convolutional Neural Networks
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
Convolutional neural networks (CNNs) have been widely adopted for computer vision applications. CNNs require many multiplications, making their use expensive in terms of both computational complexity and hardware. An effective method to mitigate the number of required multiplications is via the Winograd algorithm. Previous implementations of CNNs based on Winograd use the 2-D algorithm F(2 × 2,3 × 3), which reduces computational complexity by a factor of 2.25 over regular convolution. However, current Winograd implementations only apply when using a stride (shift displacement of a kernel over an input) of 1. In this article, we presented a novel method to apply the Winograd algorithm to a stride of 2. This method is valid for one, two, or three dimensions. We also introduced new Winograd versions compatible with a kernel of size 3, 5, and 7. The algorithms were successfully implemented on an NVIDIA K20c GPU. Compared to regular convolutions, the implementations for stride 2 are 1.44 times faster for a 3 × 3 kernel, 2.04× faster for a 5 × 5 kernel, 2.42× faster for a 7 × 7 kernel, and 1.73× faster for a 3 × 3 × 3 kernel. Additionally, a CNN accelerator using a novel processing element (PE) performs two 2-D Winograd stride 1, or one 2-D Winograd stride 2, and operations per clock cycle was implemented on an Intel Arria-10 field-programmable gate array (FPGA). We accelerated the original and our proposed modified VGG-16 architectures and achieved digital signal processor (DSP) efficiencies of 1.22 giga operations per second (GOPS)/DSPs and 1.33 GOPS/DSPs, respectively.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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