Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31847434›Full record

ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2019

IoTNet: An Efficient and Accurate Convolutional Neural Network for IoT Devices.

Tom Lawrence, Li Zhang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Tom LawrenceDepartment of Computer and Information Sciences, Faculty of Engineering and Environment, Northumbria University, Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 8ST, UK.
Li ZhangDepartment of Computer and Information Sciences, Faculty of Engineering and Environment, Northumbria University, Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 8ST, UK.

Funding

European Commission Industrial Intensive Innovation Programme
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Two main approaches exist when deploying a Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) on resource-constrained IoT devices: either scale a large model down or use a small model designed specifically for resource-constrained environments. Small architectures typically trade accuracy for computational cost by performing convolutions as depth-wise convolutions rather than standard convolutions like in large networks. Large models focus primarily on state-of-the-art performance and often struggle to scale down sufficiently. We propose a new model, namely IoTNet, designed for resource-constrained environments which achieves state-of-the-art performance within the domain of small efficient models. IoTNet trades accuracy with computational cost differently from existing methods by factorizing standard 3 × 3 convolutions into pairs of 1 × 3 and 3 × 1 standard convolutions, rather than performing depth-wise convolutions. We benchmark IoTNet against state-of-the-art efficiency-focused models and scaled-down large architectures on data sets which best match the complexity of problems faced in resource-constrained environments. We compare model accuracy and the number of floating-point operations (FLOPs) performed as a measure of efficiency. We report state-of-the-art accuracy improvement over MobileNetV2 on CIFAR-10 of 13.43% with 39% fewer FLOPs, over ShuffleNet on Street View House Numbers (SVHN) of 6.49% with 31.8% fewer FLOPs and over MobileNet on German Traffic Sign Recognition Benchmark (GTSRB) of 5% with 0.38% fewer FLOPs.

Indexed as

computational complexitycomputer visionConvolutional Neural Networkdeep learningdeep network architectureefficient architectureimage classification

Identifiers

PMID31847434
PMCPMC6960729

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.