MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4362670010 · doi:10.54097/hset.v41i.6739

Performance Analysis of Parallel Computing in Image Classification

2023· article· en· W4362670010 on OpenAlexaff
Yicong Hao

Bibliographic record

VenueHighlights in Science Engineering and Technology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicBrain Tumor Detection and Classification
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceCUDACloud computingGraphicsAccelerationGeneral-purpose computing on graphics processing unitsParallelism (grammar)Parallel computingDeep learningData parallelismArtificial neural networkScheme (mathematics)Point (geometry)SpeedupArtificial intelligenceComputer architectureComputer engineeringComputer graphics (images)Operating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The use of parallel computing can speed up the training of deep learning models. The traditional neural network model ResNet is chosen for testing in this paper on the effectiveness of data parallelism in image classification, and test data is provided in a 6-GPU environment. In this paper, it is suggested that various factors should be considered when building affordable hardware configurations to expedite model training in practical application scenarios. The communication costs are not insignificant because today's large computing clusters are primarily offered via cloud computing. Another crucial point to remember is that the number of CUDA cores is the primary hardware foundation for GPU acceleration technology. Therefore, acceleration may not be affected by more incredible video memory or fewer CUDA cores for some particular graphics cards. In addition, the issue of beyond-model performance in parallel computing is another issue that must be disregarded. Due to the parallel strategy's limitations, it is essential to tweak the super parameters while speeding up model training. The model's performance is more likely to be ensured by the lower learning rate and Batch size. This paper's experimental conclusion can support building an appropriate hardware configuration scheme.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.237 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHighlights in Science Engineering and TechnologySame topicBrain Tumor Detection and ClassificationFrench-language works237,207