4.5 Article

CNN Inference acceleration using low-power devices for human monitoring and security scenarios

期刊

COMPUTERS & ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING
卷 88, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.compeleceng.2020.106859

关键词

Convolutional neural network; OpenVINO; Neural compute stick 2; Cluster; Inference

资金

  1. EU (FEDER)
  2. Spanish MINECO [52018/TCS-4423, RTI2018093684-B-I00, TIN 2015-65277-R]
  3. CM [52018/TCS-4423, RTI2018093684-B-I00, TIN 2015-65277-R]
  4. UCM-Banco Santander Grant [PR26-16/20B-1]
  5. UCM - Innova docentia competitive Project: 2018-2019 [315]
  6. UCM - Innova docentia competitive Project: 2019-2020 [205]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Security is currently one of the top concerns in our society. From governmental installations to private companies and medical institutions, they all have to address directly with security issues as: access to restricted information quarantine control, or criminal tracking. As an example, identifying patients is critical in hospitals or geriatrics in order to isolate infected people, which has proven to be a non- trivial issue with the COVID-19 pandemic that is currently affecting all countries, or to locate fled patients. Face recognition is then a non-intrusive alternative for performing these tasks. Although FaceNet from Google has proved to be almost perfect, in a multiface scenario its performance decays rapidly. In order to mitigate this loss of performance, in this paper a cluster based on the Neural Computer Stick version 2 and OpenVINO by Intel is proposed. A detailed power and runtime study is shown for two programming models, namely: multithreading and multiprocessing. Furthermore, 3 different hosts have been considered. In the most efficient configuration, an average of 6 frames per second has been achieved using the Raspberry Pi 4 as host and with a power consumption of just 11.2W, increasing by a factor of 3.3X the energy efficiency with respect to a PC-based solution in a multi-face scenario.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据