MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410809182 · doi:10.1109/les.2025.3574563

A Memory Representation of Random Forests Optimized for Resource-Limited Embedded Devices

2025· article· en· W4410809182 on OpenAlexafffund
Justin Beaurivage, Messaoud Ahmed Ouameur, Frédéric Domingue

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Embedded Systems Letters · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNeural Networks and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Trois-Rivières
FundersMitacs
KeywordsComputer scienceRepresentation (politics)Resource (disambiguation)Random access memoryEmbedded systemReal-time computingComputer architectureComputer hardwareComputer network

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Random forests are a versatile and effective machine learning technique widely applied across various tasks. With the increasing demand for deploying machine learning models on resource-constrained embedded devices, such as microcontrollers, challenges arise from the growing complexity of modern datasets. These challenges often result in models that are too large in memory and storage requirements to be feasibly implemented on small devices. In this work, we propose a lossless memory representation of random forests that significantly limits the amount of random-access memory (RAM) required for prediction tasks, while also reducing the amount of non-volatile memory needed to store the model. The approach achieves efficiency by embedding the data of leaf nodes within the decision nodes, thereby streamlining the tree structure. Additionnally, it supports in-place prediction without requiring a decompression step. To evaluate our method, we implemented four random forests derived from real-world datasets onto four microcontroller platforms. Our results demonstrate that prediction tasks can be performed using at most 144 bytes of RAM for classification tasks, and at most 48 bytes for regression tasks, while memory accesses account for a maximum of 27.0% of the total CPU cycles. On the fastest platform, prediction times ranged between 59 and 75 μs, highlighting the suitability of this method for a variety of real-time 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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.265 · 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 designBench or experimental
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
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Embedded Systems LettersSame topicNeural Networks and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207