Comparing neuromorphic solutions in action: Implementing a bio-inspired solution to a benchmark classification task on three parallel-computing platforms

38Citations
Citations of this article
93Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Neuromorphic computing employs models of neuronal circuits to solve computing problems. Neuromorphic hardware systems are now becoming more widely available and "neuromorphic algorithms" are being developed. As they are maturing toward deployment in general research environments, it becomes important to assess and compare them in the context of the applications they are meant to solve. This should encompass not just task performance, but also ease of implementation, speed of processing, scalability, and power efficiency. Here, we report our practical experience of implementing a bio-inspired, spiking network for multivariate classification on three different platforms: the hybrid digital/analog Spikey system, the digital spike-based SpiNNaker system, and GeNN, a meta-compiler for parallel GPU hardware. We assess performance using a standard hand-written digit classification task. We found that whilst a different implementation approach was required for each platform, classification performances remained in line. This suggests that all three implementations were able to exercise the model's ability to solve the task rather than exposing inherent platform limits, although differences emerged when capacity was approached. With respect to execution speed and power consumption, we found that for each platform a large fraction of the computing time was spent outside of the neuromorphic device, on the host machine. Time was spent in a range of combinations of preparing the model, encoding suitable input spiking data, shifting data, and decoding spike-encoded results. This is also where a large proportion of the total power was consumed, most markedly for the SpiNNaker and Spikey systems. We conclude that the simulation efficiency advantage of the assessed specialized hardware systems is easily lost in excessive host-device communication, or non-neuronal parts of the computation. These results emphasize the need to optimize the host-device communication architecture for scalability, maximum throughput, and minimum latency. Moreover, our results indicate that special attention should be paid to minimize host-device communication when designing and implementing networks for efficient neuromorphic computing.

Figures

  • FIGURE 1 | Spiking model design and platform-specific implementations. (A) Conceptual spiking network model for a generic multivariate classifier design based on the insect olfactory system. (B) Neuromorphic implementation of the model using PyNN and SpiNNaker SpiNN-3 board. See text for functional detail. Note that spike sources comprise files generated on the host workstation then transferred to the SpiNNaker board. (C) Neuromorphic implementation of the model using GeNN and nVidia “Titan Black” GPU card. See text for functional detail. Note that the lighter arrows are included to imply the repeated sets of connections applied to the remaining permutations of population connections.
  • TABLE 1 | Major parameterizations of models used for each platform.
  • FIGURE 2 | Representative spike raster plots of classification of a test set at two levels of detail. (A) Detail of spikes occurring during 1 s presentation of a single test digit to the trained Spikey classifier using 10 virtual receptors. The banding discriminates individual populations of 6 or 8 neurons. The colors distinguish the main layers (bottom to top): RN layer (0–59), PN and lateral inhibitory LN neurons (60–129 and 130–189), AN output neurons and paired lateral inhibitory LN neurons (190–205 and 206–222). High activity in the upper AN population determines the classification decision. (B) The trained SpiNNaker classifier using 50VRs and all 10 digits (0–9). Spiking activity occurring during consecutive 120ms presentations of 50 × MNIST test digits ordered cyclically 0–9. The colors distinguish the main layers (bottom to top): RN layer (50 clusters of 30 neurons), PN layer (50 clusters of 30 neurons) and at the top, AN output neurons (10 clusters of 30 neurons). A perfectly regular “sawtooth” pattern of activity in the output would imply 100% classification. A similar representative raster plot from GeNN is available as Supplementary Material.
  • FIGURE 3 | Classifier performance on each platform for combinations of digit selections and number of virtual receptors (VRs). Performance is plotted as percentage correctly classified test samples (A–C). (D) shows this performance comparatively between SpiNNaker and GeNN across all experiments. Note that the performance is similar across platforms for networks of equal size in spite of the implementation differences. Note that the lines connecting markers are included simply as a visual guide to associate results for the same number of VRs.
  • FIGURE 4 | Time taken to perform training and test phases broken down by primary tasks specific to each platform. Tasks that required less time than could be displayed are not shown explicitly (they are grouped into “other”), e.g., the spiking simulation on Spikey. Tasks that accomplish roughly the same job on different platforms are shown in matching colors, whereas some tasks are specific to each of the platforms and are shown in distinct colors. Platforms shown: (A) GeNN with CPU only, (B) GeNN using GPU, (C) SpiNNaker Spinn-3, (D) Spikey.
  • FIGURE 5 | Electrical power drawn and energy used by GeNN, SpiNNaker and Spikey across training and testing when classifying 2 digits with 10VRs. (A,C,D) power consumption across the course of training and testing of a 10VR classifier for 2 MNIST digits (5,7), 1000 samples per digit. The graphs compare the implementations on the GeNN (A), SpiNNaker (C), and Spikey (D) platforms. We report the power drawn by the GPU card, the SpiNNaker, and Spikey boards, as well as the power drawn simultaneously by the attached workstation. The latter is reported as the power above the baseline (51 W) drawn by the workstation without GPU card and performing no task. SpiNNaker and Spikey power consumption was measured directly with the inline meter while GPU power draw was obtained via the reporting of the “nvidia-smi” utility (see main text). (B) Energy usage for a 10VR and a 200VR classifier, applied to 2 MNIST digits (5,7), 1000 samples per digit. The readings approximate the total energy (above baseline) used during the training and testing by multiplying the power usage in each stage of the process by its duration. The readings are repeated for the GeNN GPU, SpiNNaker and Spikey (10 VR only) platforms as well as for GeNN when set to use the workstation CPU alone.

References Powered by Scopus

The perceptron: A probabilistic model for information storage and organization in the brain

7227Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

A million spiking-neuron integrated circuit with a scalable communication network and interface

3133Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Neuromorphic silicon neuron circuits

1147Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cited by Powered by Scopus

Neuromorphic photonic networks using silicon photonic weight banks

649Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Opportunities for neuromorphic computing algorithms and applications

532Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Silicon Photonic Modulator Neuron

263Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Diamond, A., Nowotny, T., & Schmuker, M. (2016). Comparing neuromorphic solutions in action: Implementing a bio-inspired solution to a benchmark classification task on three parallel-computing platforms. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 9(JAN). https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2015.00491

Readers over time

‘16‘17‘18‘19‘20‘21‘22‘23‘2405101520

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 37

63%

Researcher 13

22%

Professor / Associate Prof. 6

10%

Lecturer / Post doc 3

5%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Engineering 19

40%

Computer Science 16

34%

Neuroscience 7

15%

Physics and Astronomy 5

11%

Article Metrics

Tooltip
Mentions
Blog Mentions: 1
Social Media
Shares, Likes & Comments: 33

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free
0