MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4200561385 · doi:10.18280/ria.350610

Optimization of the Convolution Operation to Accelerate Deep Neural Networks in FPGA

2021· article· en· W4200561385 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Malathi Devendran, Indumathi Rajendran, Vijayakumar Ponnusamy, Diwakar R. Marur

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue d intelligence artificielle · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicCCD and CMOS Imaging Sensors
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLoop unrollingComputer scienceConvolution (computer science)Field-programmable gate arrayComputationConvolutional neural networkParallel computingGate arraySpeedupMATLABArtificial neural networkPixelDeep learningArtificial intelligenceProcess (computing)Computer hardwareAlgorithmCompiler

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In recent years, machine learning algorithms related to images have been widely utilized by Convolution Neural Networks (CNN), and it has a high accuracy for recognition of an image. As CNN contains large number of computations, hardware accelerator like Field Programmable Gate Array is employed. Quite 90 % of operations during a CNN involves convolution. The objective of this work is to scale back the computation time to increase the peak, width and the pixel intensity levels in the input image. The execution time of a image processing program is mostly spent on loops. Loop optimization is a process of accelerating speed and reducing the overheads related to loops. It plays a crucial role in improving performance and making effective use of multiprocessing capabilities. Loop unrolling is one of the loop optimization techniques. In our work CNN with four levels of loop unrolling is used. Due to this delay is reduced compared with conventional Xilinix. With the assistance of strides and padding the 40 % of computation time has been reduced and is verified in MATLAB.

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 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.771
Threshold uncertainty score0.301

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.212 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations3
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevue d intelligence artificielleSame topicCCD and CMOS Imaging SensorsFrench-language works237,207