MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Optimizing FPGA-based Sparse Coding for Real-time Processing in X-ray Instrumentation

2023· article· en· W4389667411 on OpenAlexaff
Hilal Rahali, Mohammad Mehdi Rahimifar, ‪Zhehui Wang, Audrey Corbeil Therrien

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicCCD and CMOS Imaging Sensors
Canadian institutionsInstitut interdisciplinaire d'innovation technologique
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceField-programmable gate arrayData compressionQuantization (signal processing)ThroughputAlgorithmCompression ratioComputer engineeringArtificial intelligenceReal-time computingComputational scienceComputer hardware

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As detectors improve, large physics experiments generate more data. However, real-time raw data processing near the sensors can be challenging due to the high data velocity and the resource-constrained location. A practical solution involves using low-latency data reduction to lower the incoming throughput. Sparse representations and machine learning are popular methods for data reduction, with the Learned Iterative Shrinkage-Thresholding Algorithm, dubbed LISTA, combining both techniques to produce fast approximations of sparse coding. In previous work, we proposed a multi-stage strategy to compress the data at the edge. We targeted the billion-pixel X-ray camera, an X-ray imaging system with a data rate of 10 TB/s. The compression leverages a LISTA-like architecture followed by quantization and entropy coding, achieving a 100:1 compression ratio with minimal image artifacts. Using high-level synthesis, we fitted the fully connected LISTA on an FPGA. Although the inference time was around 1 μs, the number of parameters per layer of the network was limited, imposing a low input size and restricting the FPGA throughput. In this work, we explore and compare solutions for a larger input size that maintain similar performance. We studied splitting the initial linear layers into smaller ones using low-rank matrix factorization. Preliminary results indicate that the factorization can achieve a 77% increase in the input size, with increased throughput at the cost of added resources. Finally, we discuss the current limitations of the compression strategy and potential improvements moving forward.

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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.116
Threshold uncertainty score0.434

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.234 · 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCCD and CMOS Imaging SensorsFrench-language works237,207