PreprintCited by 77IoT and Edge/Fog ComputingAdvanced Neural Network ApplicationsParallel Computing and Optimization Techniques

pCAMP: Performance Comparison of Machine Learning Packages on the Edges

Open access
Zhang, Xingzhou, Wang, Yifan, Shi, Weisong·2019·arXiv

Abstract

Machine learning has changed the computing paradigm. Products today are built with machine intelligence as a central attribute, and consumers are beginning to expect near-human interaction with the appliances they use. However, much of the deep learning revolution has been limited to the cloud. Recently, several machine learning packages based on edge devices have been announced which aim to offload the computing to the edges. However, little research has been done to evaluate these packages on the edges, making it difficult for end users to select an appropriate pair of software and hardware. In this paper, we make a performance comparison of several state-of-the-art machine learning packages on the edges, including TensorFlow, Caffe2, MXNet, PyTorch, and TensorFlow Lite. We focus on evaluating the latency, memory footprint, and energy of these tools with two popular types of neural networks on different edge devices. This evaluation not only provides a reference to select appropriate combinations of hardware and software packages for end users but also points out possible future directions to optimize packages for developers.

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.1906.01878

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • No single DL library or hardware platform can entirely outperform others, and loading the DL model may take more time than executing it.

    “Experimental results show that no single DL library or hardware platform can entirely outperform others, and loading the DL model may take more time than that of executing it.”

Cites

Still being checked.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Zhang, X., Wang, Y., & Shi, W.
Affiliations
Wayne State University (US)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2019
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2963947694
Cited by
77
References
0
Citations by year
2025: 4 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 20 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 3
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › IoT and Edge/Fog Computing
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Advanced Neural Network Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Hardware and Architecture › Parallel Computing and Optimization Techniques
Keywords
edge computing, machine learning framework, performance comparison, TensorFlow, MXNet, PyTorch, TensorFlow Lite, inference latency, memory usage, energy consumption, artificial neural networks

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