MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3211346803 · doi:10.1109/sips52927.2021.00018

Fault-Tolerance of Binarized and Stochastic Computing-based Neural Networks

2021· article· en· W3211346803 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicStochastic Gradient Optimization Techniques
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStochastic computingComputer scienceArtificial neural networkFault toleranceStochastic neural networkComputationXNOR gateMNIST databaseAlgorithmTheoretical computer scienceTime delay neural networkLogic gateArtificial intelligenceDistributed computing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Both binarized and stochastic computing-based neural networks exploit bit-wise operations to replace expensive full-precision multiplications with simple XNOR gates and thus, offer low-cost hardware implementation. In stochastic computing, arithmetic computations are performed on sequences of random bits which can approximate any real values. Stochastic computing-based neural networks benefit from approximate computing and promote fault-tolerant architectures against soft errors in noisy environments. On the other hand, in binarized neural networks, real values are deterministically binarized using the sign function. As a result, any bit-flip in the binarized values dramatically changes the outcome of arithmetic computations and makes binarized neural networks more vulnerable against soft errors. In this paper, we compare these two neural networks against each other in terms of fault-tolerance and hardware complexity (i.e., area 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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.746
Threshold uncertainty score0.461

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.236
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