MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

FPGA-based Implementation of HOG Algorithm: Techniques and Challenges

2019· article· en· W3005480500 on OpenAlex
Sina Ghaffari, Parastoo Soleimani, Kin Fun Li, David W. Capson

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicCCD and CMOS Imaging Sensors
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsField-programmable gate arrayComputer scienceImplementationAlgorithmHistogramSoftware implementationHistogram of oriented gradientsSoftwareComputationEmbedded systemImage (mathematics)Artificial intelligenceOperating systemSoftware engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Histogram of Oriented Gradients (HOG) is a method for extracting features from an image, which has many applications in Computer Vision. Due to the complexity and high amount of computations of this algorithm, software-based implementations of HOG cannot meet the real-time criterion. Therefore, many researchers have implemented HOG algorithm on hardware platforms such as FPGAs. This paper presents an extensive review of FPGA-based implementations of the HOG algorithm, that have been published from 2010 to 2019. Different techniques for hardware implementation of HOG are classified into three groups: methods which improve a certain stage of the algorithm, methods which optimize the whole algorithm, and methods which make minor simplification on the algorithm. In this paper, these three classes of techniques are reviewed. Finally, the speed and resource utilization of the surveyed papers are compared to each other in order to present a comprehensive conclusion on FPGA-based HOG implementation.

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 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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.991
Threshold uncertainty score0.185

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.229 · 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

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCCD and CMOS Imaging SensorsFrench-language works237,207