Review of Inference Time Prediction Approaches of DNN: Emphasis on Service robots with cloud-edge-device architecture
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent years, the global robot market has witnessed substantial growth, particularly in the domain of service robots. Despite their expanding presence, service robots encounter limitations when operating autonomously in unstructured environments, primarily due to their constrained computational capacities. As a solution, the fusion of cloud and edge computing resources becomes imperative to expedite task inference and enhance scenario perception capabilities. The integration of cloud-edge-device models holds significant promise in bolstering the operational efficiency of robots. This entails the dynamic partitioning of intricate robotic tasks, executed collaboratively across cloud, edge, and device resources. In this landscape, deep neural network (DNN) models play a pivotal role in facilitating a wide array of robotic tasks. The inference time for each layer of a DNN model in actual deployment, emerges as a critical determinant in the model’s partitioning strategy. It also serves as an important metric influencing the model’s suitability for a specific hardware platform. This article presents an overview of recent advancements in predicting inference and training time of DNN models, summarizes the related methods, and finally discusses the challenges in this field and the research that can be studied in the future.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".