A Quality-assured Approximate Hardware Accelerators–based on Machine Learning and Dynamic Partial Reconfiguration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Machine learning is widely used these days to extract meaningful information out of the Zettabytes of sensors data collected daily. All applications require analyzing and understanding the data to identify trends, e.g., surveillance, exhibit some error tolerance. Approximate computing has emerged as an energy-efficient design paradigm aiming to take advantage of the intrinsic error resilience in a wide set of error-tolerant applications. Thus, inexact results could reduce power consumption, delay, area, and execution time. To increase the energy-efficiency of machine learning on FPGA, we consider approximation at the hardware level, e.g., approximate multipliers. However, errors in approximate computing heavily depend on the application, the applied inputs, and user preferences. However, dynamic partial reconfiguration has been introduced, as a key differentiating capability in recent FPGAs, to significantly reduce design area, power consumption, and reconfiguration time by adaptively changing a selective part of the FPGA design without interrupting the remaining system. Thus, integrating “Dynamic Partial Reconfiguration” (DPR) with “Approximate Computing” (AC) will significantly ameliorate the efficiency of FPGA-based design approximation. In this article, we propose hardware-efficient quality-controlled approximate accelerators, which are suitable to be implemented in FPGA-based machine learning algorithms as well as any error-resilient applications. Experimental results using three case studies of image blending, audio blending, and image filtering applications demonstrate that the proposed adaptive approximate accelerator satisfies the required quality with an accuracy of 81.82%, 80.4%, and 89.4%, respectively. On average, the partial bitstream was found to be 28.6 smaller than the full bitstream .
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".