SeqPoint: Identifying Representative Iterations of Sequence-Based Neural Networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ubiquity of deep neural networks (DNNs) continues to rise, making them a crucial application class for hardware optimizations. However, detailed profiling and characterization of DNN training remains difficult as these applications often run for hours to days on real hardware. Prior works have exploited the iterative nature of DNNs to profile a few training iterations to represent the entire training run. While such a strategy is sound for networks like convolutional neural networks (CNNs), where the nature of the computation is largely input independent, we observe in this work that this approach is sub-optimal for sequence-based neural networks (SQNNs) such as recurrent neural networks (RNNs). The amount and nature of computations in SQNNs can vary for each input, resulting in heterogeneity across iterations. Thus, arbitrarily selecting a few iterations is insufficient to accurately summarize the behavior of the entire training run. To tackle this challenge, we carefully study the factors that impact SQNN training iterations and identify input sequence length as the key determining factor for variations across iterations. We then use this observation to characterize all iterations of an SQNN training run (requiring no profiling or simulation of the application) and select representative iterations, which we term SeqPoints. We analyze two state-of-the-art SQNNs, DeepSpeech2 and Google's Neural Machine Translation (GNMT), and show that SeqPoints can represent their entire training runs accurately, resulting in geomean errors of only 0.11% and 0.53%, respectively, when projecting overall runtime and 0.13% and 1.50% when projecting speedups due to architectural changes. This high accuracy is achieved while reducing the time needed for profiling by 345x and 214x for the two networks compared to full training runs. As a result, SeqPoint can enable analysis of SQNN training runs in mere minutes instead of hours or days.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
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".