Measuring the Algorithmic Efficiency of Neural Networks
Open accessAbstract
Three factors drive the advance of AI: algorithmic innovation, data, and the amount of compute available for training. Algorithmic progress has traditionally been more difficult to quantify than compute and data. In this work, we argue that algorithmic progress has an aspect that is both straightforward to measure and interesting: reductions over time in the compute needed to reach past capabilities. We show that the number of floating-point operations required to train a classifier to AlexNet-level performance on ImageNet has decreased by a factor of 44x between 2012 and 2019. This corresponds to algorithmic efficiency doubling every 16 months over a period of 7 years. By contrast, Moore's Law would only have yielded an 11x cost improvement. We observe that hardware and algorithmic efficiency gains multiply and can be on a similar scale over meaningful horizons, which suggests that a good model of AI progress should integrate measures from both.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
44 times less compute was required in 2020 to train a network with the performance AlexNet achieved seven years before.
“They show that 44 times less compute was required in 2020 to train a network with the performance AlexNet achieved seven years before.”
From Trends in AI inference energy consumption: Beyond the performance-vs-parameter laws of deep learning (2023) · cites this paper as Hernandez and Brown, 2020
Section 4.1 (p. 7) reports that the compute needed to train a network from scratch to AlexNet-level performance fell by a factor of 44 over seven years. The measured period was 2012–2019, not the seven years leading up to 2020 as the citing sentence states. (LLM, conf=0.89)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 39 · Cited by 89
- Authors
- Hernandez, D., & Brown, T. B.
- Affiliations
- OpenAI (United States) (US)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2020
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2005.04305
- OpenAlex
- W3021954012
- Cited by
- 89
- References
- 39
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 9
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Topics
- 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
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Artificial Intelligence Applications
- Keywords
- algorithm efficiency, neural network training, computational efficiency, floating-point operations, Moore's law, ImageNet classification, AlexNet, training costs
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
