MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3180565565 · doi:10.3390/app11136232

Photonic Integrated Reconfigurable Linear Processors as Neural Network Accelerators

2021· article· en· W3180565565 on OpenAlexafffund
Lorenzo De Marinis, Marco Cococcioni, Odile Liboiron-Ladouceur, G. Contestabile, P. Castoldi, Nicola Andriolli

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Sciences · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNeural Networks and Reservoir Computing
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersMinistero dell’Istruzione, dell’Università e della RicercaMinistère de l'Économie, de la Science et de l'Innovation - Québec
KeywordsPhotonicsComputer scienceSilicon on insulatorSiliconSilicon photonicsOptoelectronicsElectronic engineeringMaterials scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reconfigurable linear optical processors can be used to perform linear transformations and are instrumental in effectively computing matrix–vector multiplications required in each neural network layer. In this paper, we characterize and compare two thermally tuned photonic integrated processors realized in silicon-on-insulator and silicon nitride platforms suited for extracting feature maps in convolutional neural networks. The reduction in bit resolution when crossing the processor is mainly due to optical losses, in the range 2.3–3.3 for the silicon-on-insulator chip and in the range 1.3–2.4 for the silicon nitride chip. However, the lower extinction ratio of Mach–Zehnder elements in the latter platform limits their expressivity (i.e., the capacity to implement any transformation) to 75%, compared to 97% of the former. Finally, the silicon-on-insulator processor outperforms the silicon nitride one in terms of footprint and energy efficiency.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.234 · 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
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

Citations38
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied SciencesSame topicNeural Networks and Reservoir ComputingFrench-language works237,207