Pattern Classification Using Quantized Neural Networks for FPGA-Based Low-Power IoT Devices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the recent growth of the Internet of Things (IoT) and the demand for faster computation, quantized neural networks (QNNs) or QNN-enabled IoT can offer better performance than conventional convolution neural networks (CNNs). With the aim of reducing memory access costs and increasing the computation efficiency, QNN-enabled devices are expected to transform numerous industrial applications with lower processing latency and power consumption. Another form of QNN is the binarized neural network (BNN), which has 2 bits of quantized levels. In this paper, CNN-, QNN-, and BNN-based pattern recognition techniques are implemented and analyzed on an FPGA. The FPGA hardware acts as an IoT device due to connectivity with the cloud, and QNN and BNN are considered to offer better performance in terms of low power and low resource use on hardware platforms. The CNN and QNN implementation and their comparative analysis are analyzed based on their accuracy, weight bit error, RoC curve, and execution speed. The paper also discusses various approaches that can be deployed for optimizing various CNN and QNN models with additionally available tools. The work is performed on the Xilinx Zynq 7020 series Pynq Z2 board, which serves as our FPGA-based low-power IoT device. The MNIST and CIFAR-10 databases are considered for simulation and experimentation. The work shows that the accuracy is 95.5% and 79.22% for the MNIST and CIFAR-10 databases, respectively, for full precision (32-bit), and the execution time is 5.8 ms and 18 ms for the MNIST and CIFAR-10 databases, respectively, for full precision (32-bit).
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) | 0.004 | 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".