A Comparative Analysis of Microrings Based Incoherent Photonic GEMM Accelerators
February 05, 2024 Β· Declared Dead Β· π IEEE International Symposium on Quality Electronic Design
"No code URL or promise found in abstract"
Evidence collected by the PWNC Scanner
Authors
Sairam Sri Vatsavai, Venkata Sai Praneeth Karempudi, Oluwaseun Adewunmi Alo, Ishan Thakkar
arXiv ID
2402.03149
Category
cs.AR: Hardware Architecture
Cross-listed
cs.ET,
cs.LG,
cs.NE
Citations
2
Venue
IEEE International Symposium on Quality Electronic Design
Last Checked
3 months ago
Abstract
Several microring resonator (MRR) based analog photonic architectures have been proposed to accelerate general matrix-matrix multiplications (GEMMs) in deep neural networks with exceptional throughput and energy efficiency. To implement GEMM functions, these MRR-based architectures, in general, manipulate optical signals in five different ways: (i) Splitting (copying) of multiple optical signals to achieve a certain fan-out, (ii) Aggregation (multiplexing) of multiple optical signals to achieve a certain fan-in, (iii) Modulation of optical signals to imprint input values onto analog signal amplitude, (iv) Weighting of modulated optical signals to achieve analog input-weight multiplication, (v) Summation of optical signals. The MRR-based GEMM accelerators undertake the first four ways of signal manipulation in an arbitrary order ignoring the possible impact of the order of these manipulations on their performance. In this paper, we conduct a detailed analysis of accelerator organizations with three different orders of these manipulations: (1) Modulation-Aggregation-Splitting-Weighting (MASW), (2) Aggregation-Splitting-Modulation-Weighting (ASMW), and (3) Splitting-Modulation-Weighting-Aggregation (SMWA). We show that these organizations affect the crosstalk noise and optical signal losses in different magnitudes, which renders these organizations with different levels of processing parallelism at the circuit level, and different magnitudes of throughput and energy-area efficiency at the system level. Our evaluation results for four CNN models show that SMWA organization achieves up to 4.4$\times$, 5$\times$, and 5.2$\times$ better throughput, energy efficiency, and area-energy efficiency, respectively, compared to ASMW and MASW organizations on average.
Community Contributions
Found the code? Know the venue? Think something is wrong? Let us know!
π Similar Papers
In the same crypt β Hardware Architecture
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Corona: System Implications of Emerging Nanophotonic Technology
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
A scalable multi-core architecture with heterogeneous memory structures for Dynamic Neuromorphic Asynchronous Processors (DYNAPs)
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
SpAtten: Efficient Sparse Attention Architecture with Cascade Token and Head Pruning
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Neural Cache: Bit-Serial In-Cache Acceleration of Deep Neural Networks
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
SpArch: Efficient Architecture for Sparse Matrix Multiplication
Died the same way β π» Ghosted
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Federated Learning: Strategies for Improving Communication Efficiency
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Deep Convolutional Neural Networks for Computer-Aided Detection: CNN Architectures, Dataset Characteristics and Transfer Learning
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Explanation in Artificial Intelligence: Insights from the Social Sciences
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted