PreprintCited by 37Parallel Computing and Optimization TechniquesEmbedded Systems Design TechniquesIoT and Edge/Fog Computing

DNN is not all you need: Parallelizing Non-Neural ML Algorithms on Ultra-Low-Power IoT Processors

Open access
Tabanelli, Enrico, Tagliavini, Giuseppe, Benini, Luca·2021·arXiv

Abstract

Machine Learning (ML) functions are becoming ubiquitous in latency- and privacy-sensitive IoT applications, prompting a shift toward near-sensor processing at the extreme edge and the consequent increasing adoption of Parallel Ultra-Low Power (PULP) IoT processors. These compute- and memory-constrained parallel architectures need to run efficiently a wide range of algorithms, including key Non-Neural ML kernels that compete favorably with Deep Neural Networks (DNNs) in terms of accuracy under severe resource constraints. In this paper, we focus on enabling efficient parallel execution of Non-Neural ML algorithms on two RISCV-based PULP platforms, namely GAP8, a commercial chip, and PULP-OPEN, a research platform running on an FPGA emulator. We optimized the parallel algorithms through a fine-grained analysis and intensive optimization to maximize the speedup, considering two alternative Floating-Point (FP) emulation libraries on GAP8 and the native FPU support on PULP-OPEN. Experimental results show that a target-optimized emulation library can lead to an average 1.61x runtime improvement and 37% energy reduction compared to a standard emulation library, while the native FPU support reaches up to 32.09x and 99%, respectively. In terms of parallel speedup, our design improves the sequential execution by 7.04x on average on the targeted octa-core platforms leading to energy and latency decrease up to 87%. Lastly, we present a comparison with the ARM Cortex-M4 microcontroller (MCU), a widely adopted commercial solution for edge deployments, which is 12.87x slower and 98% less energy-efficient than PULP-OPEN.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2107.09448

Cites

79 of 79 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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 PULP framework tested against PULP-OPEN hardware shows 12.87x faster performance than an ARM Cortex-M4 MCU.

    “The PULP framework is tested against the PULP-OPEN hardware which shows 12.87x faster than ARM Cortex-M4 MCU.”

    From A review on TinyML: State-of-the-art and prospects (2022) · cites this paper as Tabanelli et al., 2021

    Section 5.4 compares non-neural ML kernels on PULP-OPEN with an ARM Cortex-M4 MCU, and the Introduction reports 9.27×–15.85× speedups for the eight-core PULP-OPEN configuration. The citing sentence omits that configuration and describes the framework itself as being tested against PULP-OPEN hardware; Section 5.1 says the PULP-OPEN architecture was emulated on an FPGA. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Tabanelli et al. (2021) discuss the PULP framework for IoT-based processors, which allows running non-neural machine learning kernels that can compete with neural networks in accuracy.

    “In (Tabanelli et al., 2021), a parallel ultra-low power (PULP) framework is discussed for IoT-based processors.”

    From A review on TinyML: State-of-the-art and prospects (2022) · cites this paper as Tabanelli et al., 2021

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

3 of the 82 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 8

  1. Michael Christensen and Fred J. Taylor. 2006. Fixed-point-IIR-filter challenges. EDN Netw. 51, 23 (2006), 111-122.
  2. K. V. Greeshma and K. Sreekumar. 2019. Fashion-MNIST classification based on HOG feature descriptor using SVM. Int. J. Innov. Technol. Explor. Eng. 8, 5 (2019), 960-962.
  3. Chirag Gupta, Arun Sai Suggala, Ankit Goyal, Harsha Vardhan Simhadri, Bhargavi Paranjape, Ashish Kumar, Saurabh Goyal, Raghavendra Udupa, Manik Varma, and Prateek Jain. 2017. ProtoNN: Compressed and accurate kNN for resource-scarce devices. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Machine Learning. PMLR, 1331-1340.
  4. Colby Banbury, Vijay Janapa Reddi, Peter Torelli, Jeremy Holleman, Nat Jeffries, Csaba Kiraly, Pietro Montino, David Kanter, Sebastian Ahmed, Danilo Pau, et al. 2021. MLPerf tiny benchmark. Retrieved from https://arXiv:2106.07597.
  5. Rohit Chandra, Leo Dagum, David Kohr, Ramesh Menon, Dror Maydan, and Jeff McDonald. 2001. Parallel Program- ming in OpenMP. Morgan Kaufmann.
  6. Sumit Patel, M. B. Potdar, and Bhadreshsinh Gohil. 2015. A survey on image processing techniques with OpenMP. Int. J. Eng. Dev. Res. 3, 4 (2015), 837-839.
  7. Karl Fürlinger and Michael Gerndt. 2006. Analyzing overheads and scalability characteristics of OpenMP applications. In Proceedings of the International Conference on High Performance Computing for Computational Science. Springer, 39-51.
  8. M. M. Ranjitha, N. L. Taranath, C. N. Arpitha, and C. K. Subbaraya. 2019. Bone cancer detection using k-means segmen- tation and KNN classification. In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Advances in Information Technology (ICAIT'19). 76-80.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Tabanelli, E., Tagliavini, G., & Benini, L.
Affiliations
University of Bologna (IT)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2021
Volume
22
Issue
3
Pages
1-33
ISSN
1539-9087 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3185199394
Cited by
36
References
82
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 3
FWCI
6.81
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • ACM Transactions on Embedded Computing Systems (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • Archivio istituzionale della ricerca (Alma Mater Studiorum Università di Bologna) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
Horizon 2020 Framework Programme (101034126)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Hardware and Architecture › Parallel Computing and Optimization Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Hardware and Architecture › Embedded Systems Design Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › IoT and Edge/Fog Computing
Keywords
parallel algorithms, RISC-V, energy efficiency, edge computing, near-sensor processing, algorithm 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