2019
DOI: 10.1109/tns.2019.2920747
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Assessment of a Hardware-Implemented Machine Learning Technique Under Neutron Irradiation

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
10
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
3
3
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 18 publications
(10 citation statements)
references
References 22 publications
0
10
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In the context of soft error assessment, with the exception of [34], [36] and this work, reviewed approaches do not consider resource-constraint on their experiments. The majority of these works consider either FPGA implementations of ML algorithms [9], [32], [35] or their execution on GPU [30], DNN accelerators [10], [29], [37] or generalpurpose processors [31], [33]. On the soft error mitigation side, traditional partial TMR or specific mitigation techniques have been considered either in FPGA implementations [9] or applied to specialized hardware accelerator [10] or more generic GPUs [30].…”
Section: B Review Of Soft Error Assessment Of ML Algorithmsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In the context of soft error assessment, with the exception of [34], [36] and this work, reviewed approaches do not consider resource-constraint on their experiments. The majority of these works consider either FPGA implementations of ML algorithms [9], [32], [35] or their execution on GPU [30], DNN accelerators [10], [29], [37] or generalpurpose processors [31], [33]. On the soft error mitigation side, traditional partial TMR or specific mitigation techniques have been considered either in FPGA implementations [9] or applied to specialized hardware accelerator [10] or more generic GPUs [30].…”
Section: B Review Of Soft Error Assessment Of ML Algorithmsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Of the total number of samples evaluated, 7% resulted in critical failures, while 21.4% have been tolerable failures and the majority, 71.6% were masked faults. From these results, it is noticeable that it is more likely for an error not to critically interfere with the application in this study case, as in 93% of the cases, the final classification of a sample would STILL be correct, recreating roughly the results in [11]. It is worth nothing that no fault mitigating or correction has been implemented on the Binary SVM, with the overall error resilience being an intrinsic characteristic of the algorithm.…”
Section: Radiation Test Results For the Binary Svmmentioning
confidence: 83%
“…In Figure 3(a) and (b), it is noticeable that the Binary SVM is less reliable than the Multiclass version, as the reliability curve falls quicker. In [11], the authors have showed that the Binary SVM has a level of intrinsic fault tolerance. A more in-depth discussion on the reasons in presented later in Subsection 5.5.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…In real-world applications, such as IoT, airspace, and driver-less cars, CNNs can potentially experience different types of faults. Various works evaluate CNN reliability on faulty real hardware, e.g., soft errors [61,62,112,13] and undervolting in ASICs [59,17,116,117,54]. This approach requires significant engineering effort but can result in relatively more accurate results.…”
Section: Reliability Of Cnnsmentioning
confidence: 99%