MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403582447 · doi:10.1145/3627673.3679678

Low Carbon Footprint Training for 1D-CNNs with Temporal Max-Pooling

2024· article· en· W4403582447 on OpenAlexaff
Anandharaju Durai Raju, Ke Wang

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicVideo Surveillance and Tracking Methods
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPoolingFootprintCarbon footprintComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceTraining (meteorology)Pattern recognition (psychology)Carbon fibersAlgorithmGeologyMeteorologyGeographyGreenhouse gasOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Training convolutional neural networks (CNNs) demands huge GPU memory consumption and training time, leading to increased carbon emissions, and impacting sustainability. In this paper, we propose HotConv, a low GPU memory and low carbon footprint learning strategy for training the class of 1D CNNs that have a temporal max-pooling layer. Such CNNs are widely used in various domains for learning large-sized inputs, including genomics and malware detection. HotConv reduces the GPU memory usage of such CNNs by harnessing the sparsity of relevant activations and gradients at the temporal max-pooling layer, which produces the same model as the full computation of activations and gradients, without trading-off model performance. Evaluations using the public benchmark BODMAS and VirusTotal datasets for malware detection with HotConv applied to the public MalConv network architecture show that the carbon footprint reduction using HotConv is superior to existing approaches. For instance, HotConv uses only 1/22 of the GPU memory used by MalConv2 - the memory-efficient variant of MalConv, while also consuming less training time than MalConv2. This is equivalent to reducing the carbon footprint up to 1/4 of that of MalConv2 without compromising performance.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.893
Threshold uncertainty score0.433

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.258 · 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
GenreMethods

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 topicVideo Surveillance and Tracking MethodsFrench-language works237,207