fpgaConvNet: Mapping regular and irregular convolutional neural networks on FPGAs
Abstract
Since neural networks renaissance, convolutional neural networks (ConvNets) have demonstrated a state-of-the-art performance in several emerging artificial intelligence tasks. The deployment of ConvNets in real-life applications requires power-efficient designs that meet the application-level performance needs. In this context, field-programmable gate arrays (FPGAs) can provide a potential platform that can be tailored to application-specific requirements. However, with the complexity of ConvNet models increasing rapidly, the ConvNet-to-FPGA design space becomes prohibitively large. This paper presents fpgaConvNet, an end-to-end framework for the optimized mapping of ConvNets on FPGAs. The proposed framework comprises an automated design methodology based on the synchronous dataflow (SDF) paradigm and defines a set of SDF transformations in order to efficiently navigate the architectural design space. By proposing a systematic multiobjective optimization formulation, the presented framework is able to generate hardware designs that are cooptimized for the ConvNet workload, the target device, and the application's performance metric of interest. Quantitative evaluation shows that the proposed methodology yields hardware designs that improve the performance by up to 6.65× over highly optimized graphics processing unit designs for the same power constraints and achieve up to 2.94× higher performance density compared with the state-of-the-art FPGA-based ConvNet architectures.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The authors in [95-97] proposed automated tools (fpgaConvNet, CNN2Gate and Caffeine) which allow the mapping of CNN models onto FPGA hardware.
“The authors in [95-97] proposed automated tools (termed fpgaConvNet, CNN2Gate and Caffeine, respectively), which allow the mapping of CNN models onto FPGA hardware.”
From Embedded Intelligence on FPGA: Survey, Applications and Challenges (2021) · cites this paper as [95]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 68 · Cited by 161
- Authors
- Venieris, S. I., & Bouganis, C.-S.
- Affiliations
- Imperial College London (GB)
- Venue
- IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems
- Published
- 2019-02
- Volume
- 30
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 326-342
- ISSN
- 2162-237X (ISSN-L)
- 2162-2388
- OpenAlex
- W2810861508
- Cited by
- 161
- References
- 68
- Citations by year
- 2026: 9 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 24 · 2021: 33 · 2020: 27 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 1
- FWCI
- 21.83
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- Locations
- IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Spiral (Imperial College London) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (1507723)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Hardware and Architecture › Embedded Systems Design Techniques
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Advanced Neural Network Applications
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Electrical and Electronic Engineering › VLSI and FPGA Design Techniques
- Keywords
- convolutional neural networks, FPGA acceleration, synchronous dataflow, multi-objective optimization
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review