MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Distributed Training of Neural Radiance Fields: A Performance Characterization

2024· article· en· W4400680585 on OpenAlexaff
Adrian Zhao, Louis Zhang, Sankeerth Durvasula, Fan Chen, Nilesh Jain, Selvakumar Panneer, Nandita Vijaykumar

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNeural Networks and Applications
Canadian institutionsVector InstituteUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRadianceTraining (meteorology)Computer scienceCharacterization (materials science)Artificial neural networkArtificial intelligenceRemote sensingGeologyOpticsMeteorology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Implicit neural representation is an emerging method that leverages deep neural networks and learned parameters to represent 3D scenes efficiently and accurately. Neural radiance field (NeRF) is a state-of-art implicit representation that achieves photorealistic 3D reconstruction with compact neural network models. However, as the complexity and scale of the scene increase, training NeRF models with a single GPU proves insufficient for achieving fast training and high-quality reconstruction. To address this challenge, prior works proposed distributed NeRF training methods. This is the first work to conduct a detailed evaluation of two major distributed NeRF training methods and their tradeoffs: distributed data parallel (DDP) and spatial segmentation (SS). We find that DDP training requires cross-device synchronization during training, while SS training incurs additional fusion overhead during inference. Our analysis also reveals that sampling input images is a common key bottleneck in distributed NeRF training. At the beginning of each training iteration, the CPU generates input batches for all GPUs in the cluster by sampling all images in the dataset, causing significant stalls that constitute up to 43.3% of the total training time. To alleviate this bottleneck, we propose a pipelined input sampling strategy that precomputes input samples on the CPU concurrently with model training on the GPUs. Our evaluation demonstrates an average speedup in training time by$1.95\times($up to$2.24\times)$.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.212 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNeural Networks and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207