MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Deep Learning-based Ship Detection on FPGAs

2022· article· en· W4315926799 on OpenAlexaff
Younis Ibrahim, Li Chen, Haonan Tian

Bibliographic record

Venue2022 14th International Conference on Computational Intelligence and Communication Networks (CICN) · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Neural Network Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsField-programmable gate arrayComputer scienceLatency (audio)Software deploymentObject detectionDeep learningInferenceDeep neural networksEfficient energy useEnergy consumptionPower consumptionEmbedded systemArtificial neural networkArtificial intelligenceReal-time computingPower (physics)Computer engineeringPattern recognition (psychology)EngineeringTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Detecting ships from remote sensing imagery is a crucial application for maritime surveillance. Object detection algorithms based on Deep Neural Networks (DNNs), such as YOLO, have enabled sophisticated accuracy for ship detection tasks. However, the deployment of DNN models on embedded accelerators raises several issues, including performance degradation, latency delays, and energy consumption due to the computational complexity and model size of these models. Thus, given the limitations of computational resources in embedded devices, the question of how to determine the balanced tradeoff between performance, inference latency, and energy efficiency has been a concern. In this study, we demonstrate the feasibility of the Versal ACAP FPGA (VCK190) for YOLO-based ship detection compared to Jetson TX2 GPU. Our results show that despite providing similar performance, the FPGA board can predict a YOLO model in less time, roughly half the time it takes the GPU to implement the same model in addition to the superior power 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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
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 score0.986
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.257 · 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.

Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations5
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue2022 14th International Conference on Computational Intelligence and Communication Networks (CICN)Same topicAdvanced Neural Network ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207