MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3089601434 · doi:10.3390/s20195655

A Novel Hardware–Software Co-Design and Implementation of the HOG Algorithm

2020· article· en· W3089601434 on OpenAlexafffund
Sina Ghaffari, Parastoo Soleimani, Kin Fun Li, David W. Capson

Bibliographic record

VenueSensors · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicCCD and CMOS Imaging Sensors
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Victoria
KeywordsComputer scienceAlgorithmHistogramField-programmable gate arraySoftwareHardware accelerationComputationNormalization (sociology)Computer hardwareFrame rateArtificial intelligenceImage (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The histogram of oriented gradients is a commonly used feature extraction algorithm in many applications. Hardware acceleration can boost the speed of this algorithm due to its large number of computations. We propose a hardware–software co-design of the histogram of oriented gradients and the subsequent support vector machine classifier, which can be used to process data from digital image sensors. Our main focus is to minimize the resource usage of the algorithm while maintaining its accuracy and speed. This design and implementation make four contributions. First, we allocate the computationally expensive steps of the algorithm, including gradient calculation, magnitude computation, bin assignment, normalization and classification, to hardware, and the less complex windowing step to software. Second, we introduce a logarithm-based bin assignment. Third, we use parallel computation and a time-sharing protocol to create a histogram in order to achieve the processing of one pixel per clock cycle after the initialization (setup time) of the pipeline, and produce valid results at each clock cycle afterwards. Finally, we use a simplified block normalization logic to reduce hardware resource usage while maintaining accuracy. Our design attains a frame rate of 115 frames per second on a Xilinx® Kintex® Ultrascale™ FPGA while using less hardware resources, and only losing accuracy marginally, in comparison with other existing work.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.004

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.224 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations7
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSensorsSame topicCCD and CMOS Imaging SensorsFrench-language works237,207