MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3003197669 · doi:10.1109/icfpt47387.2019.00025

Partitioning FPGA-Optimized Systolic Arrays for Fun and Profit

2019· article· en· W3003197669 on OpenAlexaff
Long Chung Chan, Gurshaant Malik, Nachiket Kapre

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicVLSI and FPGA Design Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSystolic arrayField-programmable gate arrayComputer scienceParallel computingPartition (number theory)Latency (audio)ThroughputAlgorithmComputer hardwareEmbedded systemVery-large-scale integrationMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We can improve the inference throughput of deep convolutional networks mapped to FPGA-optimized systolic arrays, at the expense of latency, with array partitioning and layer pipelining. Modern convolutional networks have a growing number of layers, such as the 58 separable layer GoogleNetv1, with varying compute, storage, and data movement requirements. At the same time, modern high-end FPGAs, such as the Xilinx UltraScale+ VU37P, can accommodate high-performance, 650 MHz, layouts of large 1920x9 systolic arrays. These can stay underutilized if the network layer requirements do not match the array size. We formulate an optimization problem, for improving array utilization, and boosting inference throughput, that determines how to partition the systolic array on the FPGA chip, and how to slice the network layers across the array partitions in a pipelined fashion. We adopt a two phase approach where (1) we identify layer assignment for each partition using an Evolutionary Strategy, and (2) we adopt a greedy-but-optimal approach for resource allocation to select the systolic array dimensions of each partition. When compared to state-of-the-art systolic architectures, we show throughput improvements in the range 1.3-1.5x and latency improvements in the range 0.5-1.8x against Multi-CLP and Xilinx SuperTile.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.856
Threshold uncertainty score0.296

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.195 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations5
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicVLSI and FPGA Design TechniquesFrench-language works237,207