MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Software-Level Accuracy Using Stochastic Computing With Charge-Trap-Flash Based Weight Matrix

2020· preprint· en· W3020565402 on OpenAlexaff
Varun Bhatt, Shalini Shrivastava, Tanmay Chavan, Udayan Ganguly

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Memory and Neural Computing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMNIST databaseComputer scienceDot productMatrix multiplicationComputer engineeringRange (aeronautics)Deep learningResistive random-access memoryFlash memoryFloating pointSoftwareArtificial neural networkCrossbar switchAlgorithmArtificial intelligenceComputational scienceVoltageComputer hardwareElectrical engineeringEngineeringMathematicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The in-memory computing paradigm with emerging memory devices has been recently shown to be a promising way to accelerate deep learning. Resistive processing unit (RPU) has been proposed to enable the vector-vector outer product in a crossbar array using a stochastic train of identical pulses to enable one-shot weight update, promising intense speed-up in matrix multiplication operations, which form the bulk of training neural networks. However, the performance of the system suffers if the device does not satisfy the condition of linear conductance change over around 1,000 conductance levels. This is a challenge for nanoscale memories. Recently, Charge Trap Flash (CTF) memory was shown to have a large number of levels before saturation, but variable non-linearity. In this paper, we explore the trade-off between the range of conductance change and linearity. We show, through simulations, that at an optimum choice of the range, our system performs nearly as well as the models trained using exact floating point operations, with less than 1% reduction in the performance. Our system reaches an accuracy of 97.9% on MNIST dataset, 89.1% and 70.5% accuracy on CIFAR-10 and CIFAR-100 datasets (using pre-extracted features). We also show its use in reinforcement learning, where it is used for value function approximation in Q-Learning, and learns to complete an episode the mountain car control problem in around 146 steps. Benchmarked to state-of-the-art, the CTF based RPU shows best in class performance to enable software equivalent performance.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.231 · 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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Memory and Neural ComputingFrench-language works237,207