2021 13th International Conference on Electronics, Computers and Artificial Intelligence (ECAI) 2021
DOI: 10.1109/ecai52376.2021.9515098
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Comparison of Tensorflow and PyTorch in Convolutional Neural Network - based Applications

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
1
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 17 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 2 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…RQ5: Our analysis showed that among the six tools used to build RNN models in the selected studies (as detailed in Table 15 and Fig 13), Pytorch and TensorFlow were the most common, being used in 55% of the studies. This prevalence can be attributed to their established recognition, open-source nature [76,77,79], and widespread adoption for neural networks [109]. Researchers have a promising opportunity to enhance code clone detection by considering alternative frameworks with high rankings for implementing DL models, such as MXNet [110] and Theano [111].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…RQ5: Our analysis showed that among the six tools used to build RNN models in the selected studies (as detailed in Table 15 and Fig 13), Pytorch and TensorFlow were the most common, being used in 55% of the studies. This prevalence can be attributed to their established recognition, open-source nature [76,77,79], and widespread adoption for neural networks [109]. Researchers have a promising opportunity to enhance code clone detection by considering alternative frameworks with high rankings for implementing DL models, such as MXNet [110] and Theano [111].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The Keras library is implemented on top of TF and simplifies the learning process, albeit with slightly higher test environment accuracy but longer training times [79]. However, TF's installation process is more complex than PT's due to the lack of native GPU support [80]. PT, developed by Meta, has built-in GPU support for Apple Silicon, making it easier to install [79], and beats TF in the operating time cycles.…”
Section: Initial Setupmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…PT, developed by Meta, has built-in GPU support for Apple Silicon, making it easier to install [79], and beats TF in the operating time cycles. Despite these differences, there is no objective superiority between the libraries [80]. In the end, TF was chosen to develop a custom CNN for defect identification, with portability for use in a variety of field devices, such as a Raspberry Pi or a standard laptop.…”
Section: Initial Setupmentioning
confidence: 99%