Learning the Error Features of Approximate Multipliers for Neural Network Applications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Approximate multipliers (AMs) have widely been investigated to pursue high-performance and energy-efficient hardware designs for error-tolerant applications, such as neural networks (NNs). The computing accuracy of an AM has been evaluated by using statistical error features; however, it is difficult to estimate the quality of a specific application using AMs. Thus, it is a great challenge to select or design appropriate AMs for an accuracy-constrained application. This paper proposes an application-oriented error evaluation framework for AMs with the aim of exploring the correlation between statistical error features of AMs and the accuracy degradation in AM-based NN applications. Specifically, based on the Dropout Feature Ranking technique, statistical error features of AMs are extensively studied and ranked by their importance to the accuracy of AM-based NN applications. The three most informative features are obtained to construct error models to predict the accuracy loss of AM-based NN applications. The constructed classification models show a probability higher than 96% for correctly classifying the AMs into three categories in accordance with the induced accuracy loss in AM-based NN applications. Furthermore, regression models can predict the accuracy of NN applications using an AM with a deviation as low as 6%. These results show that the proposed error evaluation framework can guide an efficient selection of AMs for NN applications by using just several AM error features, instead of running time-consuming and complicated hardware simulation. The obtained statistical error features can also provide a guidance for the design or generation of application-oriented AMs. Moreover, the proposed framework is applicable for quickly analyzing and selecting other approximate circuits for error-tolerant applications.
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 | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".