Performance Isolation for Inference Processes in Edge GPU Systems

Carles Hern\'andez; Jos\'e Flich; Juan Jos\'e Mart\'in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Performance Isolation for Inference Processes in Edge GPU Systems

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read This paper argues that NVIDIA's Green Contexts can give edge GPUs near-MIG temporal isolation when power is not the bottleneck, making them a viable substitute for MIG on power-unconstrained edge devices.

desk verdict First comparative data on NVIDIA Green Contexts for edge inference isolation; the central finding is plausible but the quantitative support is weaker than the prose suggests. read the letter →

arxiv 2601.07600 v3 pith:WDXYMYFQ submitted 2026-01-12 cs.OS cs.DC

Juan José Martín , José Flich , Carles Hernández This is my paper

classification cs.OScs.DC

keywords GPUisolationGreenContextsMIGMPStemporalpredictabilityedgeinferenceJetsonOrinsafety-criticalsystems

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper sets out to determine which GPU isolation mechanism can give safety-critical deep-learning inferences predictable timing when several processes share one GPU. It compares NVIDIA's three mechanisms — MPS, MIG, and Green Contexts — on a server A100 and on Jetson Orin edge boards. Its central finding is that MIG offers the strongest temporal isolation, but on edge hardware Green Contexts, which partition the GPU at the granularity of individual streaming multiprocessors, can approach MIG-level isolation when the board has spare power headroom. On power-constrained boards such as the Orin Nano, power saturation causes GPU frequency throttling that destroys Green Contexts' timing guarantees. The paper concludes that Green Contexts are a promising MIG alternative for edge systems, provided memory isolation is added and power limits are respected.

What carries the argument

The central objects are the three isolation mechanisms: MPS (a software layer that merges CUDA contexts to reduce switching overhead), MIG (hardware partitioning into GPU processing clusters, GPCs), and Green Contexts (software-defined CUDA contexts that cap the number of streaming multiprocessors, SMs, a process can use). The paper's measuring device is Algorithm 1, which searches for the maximum stable inference frequency per model and partition, then records the timeout percentage of a fixed-rate process under contention. This converts 'isolation' into an empirical quantity: a technology isolates well if the fixed process never misses its inference deadline as the competing load rises.

What would settle it

Re-run the Orin Nano contention experiment with the GPU clock locked to a constant frequency (bypassing DVFS) while keeping the same 4-SM Green Context partitions; if timeouts persist, the isolation failure is not caused by power throttle. Alternatively, compute Algorithm 1's maximum stable frequency ten times on the same model and check whether the spread in f predicts the timeout percentages better than the contention level does.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Using a timeout-based benchmark where one process performs inference at a frequency derived by a search algorithm (Algorithm 1) while a competing process increases its request rate, the paper measures isolation as the percentage of timed-out inferences. On the Jetson Orin AGX with the GPU clock fixed at 1.02 GHz, Green Contexts with 4-SM partitions keep timeouts near zero even with up to four concurrent processes, matching the behavior of MIG on the A100. On the Orin Nano, the same setup produces frequent timeouts because two processes together approach the board's ~20 W power limit, causing the GPU to drop its frequency by roughly half. The paper attributes the difference to power headroom,

Load-bearing premise

The measured isolation numbers assume the per-model deadline fixed by Algorithm 1 is a trustworthy worst-case inference rate; if that deadline already contains run-to-run variability, the reported timeout percentages partly reflect benchmark noise rather than isolation failures, and the same applies to the assumption that two copies of the same network capture the contention behavior of real ensembles.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

On power-unconstrained edge GPUs, Green Contexts can serve as a drop-in MIG-like isolation layer with finer granularity than MIG and no measurable throughput overhead.
On power-constrained boards, any isolation mechanism that allows concurrent processes to collectively saturate the power budget will fail to guarantee inference deadlines, because DVFS throttling overrides partitioning.
Temporal stability depends on model type: compute-bound models tolerate resource shrinking better than memory-bound models, so isolation requirements are model-dependent.
MIG remains the strongest isolation mechanism but its static, non-resizable partitions limit adaptability to dynamic real-time workloads, motivating software alternatives.
Existing isolation mechanisms still lack memory isolation for Green Contexts and complete temporal guarantees in all scenarios, so fully predictable shared-GPU inference is not yet solved.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The paper's method of deriving the maximum inference frequency with Algorithm 1 makes the isolation claim contingent on that frequency being a stable property; a natural extension would measure the spread of f across repeated runs and use a distributional deadline instead of a point value.
If the power-throttling explanation is right, then a testable prediction follows: capping the Orin Nano's power budget or reducing the number of concurrently active SMs should restore Green Contexts' isolation without moving to a larger board.
The two-process, identical-model contention setup is a first step; real ensembles mix models, so mixed-model contention (e.g., a memory-bound and a compute-bound network sharing the same SM partition) is the next experiment that would stress test the conclusions.
The finding that Green Contexts show no overhead suggests a path toward dynamic SM reallocation: if memory isolation is added, Green Contexts could enable schedulers that resize partitions at runtime — something MIG cannot do.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The short version: this is the first paper I've seen that actually measures Green Contexts on Jetson hardware for temporal isolation, and that alone makes it worth a look for anyone working on safety-critical inference at the edge. The A100 MIG/MPS results are consistent with prior work, and the Orin Nano vs AGX comparison is the useful part — GC looks weak when power is capped and much closer to MIG when it isn't. That power-throttling interaction is a real, non-obvious finding.

What the paper does well: six models across three platforms, TensorRT on the Jetsons, and power/frequency monitoring that gives a plausible mechanism for the Nano failure mode. The authors are also honest about GC's lack of memory isolation and about MIG's rigidity. The writing is clear, and the experimental scope is appropriate for a first characterization.

The soft spots are real, but they are the usual empirical-paper gaps rather than fatal flaws. The timeout percentages in Figures 8–11 are trend lines with no error bars, no repetition counts, and no per-run variance. That matters because a 5% difference between MPS and GC could easily be noise. More structurally, the deadlines come from Algorithm 1's "maximum stable inference frequency" f, which is found by requiring zero violations in 1000 inferences plus three validation batches. That is a finite-sample estimate of the latency tail, not a guarantee. The paper never reports the timeout rate of the fixed process running alone at f, so a nonzero baseline violation rate is conflated with isolation failure. The stress-test note is right about this: the cross-technology comparison is quantitatively unreliable unless f has the same conservatism everywhere, which is not shown. The power-throttling explanation for the Nano is also inferred from monitoring traces rather than demonstrated with a controlled power-cap ablation.

That said, the central claim survives my reading. It's not circular, the measurements are independent of the conclusions, and the AGX result — GC approaching MIG-like isolation when power headroom exists — is consistent with the monitoring data. The missing baseline and error bars limit confidence, but they don't break the paper.

The right call is to send this to peer review. A serious referee can push for raw data, repetition statistics, a no-contention baseline, and ideally an explicit power-cap experiment on the Nano. I'd bring it to a reading group focused on GPU resource isolation or real-time inference. If I were working on edge GPU scheduling, I'd cite it as the first GC characterization, even with the caveats.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper compares NVIDIA GPU isolation mechanisms—MPS, MIG, and Green Contexts (GC)—for providing predictable DNN inference times in safety-critical settings. The methodology has three parts: a partitioning-overhead study on the A100 and Jetson Orin Nano; a calibration stage (Algorithm 1) that determines a 'maximum stable inference frequency' f per model and technology; and contention experiments in which one process runs at f while a second (or several) processes increase their request rate, with timeout percentages used as the isolation metric. The main conclusions are that MIG gives the strongest temporal isolation, MPS gives moderate improvement, GC is not reliable on the power-constrained Orin Nano, and GC can approach MIG-like isolation on the Orin AGX when power is not limiting.

Significance. If the conclusions hold, the paper would provide a valuable empirical data point: Green Contexts, a new fine-grained SM-partitioning mechanism, could serve as a low-overhead, more flexible substitute for MIG-like isolation on power-unconstrained edge GPUs. The identification of power throttling as the cause of GC's poor isolation on the Orin Nano is also practically useful. The paper covers a timely technology and spans multiple platforms and model classes. However, the quantitative evidence for the headline 'GC approaches MIG' claim is currently weaker than the text suggests: the deadline f is not statistically validated, no solo-running baseline is reported, and the timeout figures contain no uncertainty information. The conclusions may be correct, but the evidence as presented does not yet meet the standard needed for safety-critical timing claims.

major comments (3)

[Section IV.C, Algorithm 1, Eq. (1)] The deadline f for the fixed process is certified only by absence of violations over N=1,000 inferences plus K=3 validation batches, and the INCREASE/DECREASE step sizes are unspecified. This is a finite-sample heuristic, not a validated worst-case rate. No control experiment reports the timeout percentage of each fixed process running alone at f. As a result, the timeout percentages in Figs. 8–11 conflate inherent latency variability with isolation failure. Concretely, if the true violation probability at f were 10^-3, the 3,000-inference validation would pass with ~5% probability, but a 10^4-inference contention run would show ~10 timeouts even under perfect isolation. Since f is recomputed per technology, any difference in conservatism across standalone/MPS/MIG/GC biases the cross-technology comparisons. Please add solo-baseline timeout rates at f for each platform/technology/model, o
[Section V.D, Figs. 8–11] The central measurements are presented as 'trend' lines with no confidence intervals, number of repetitions, or per-point number of inferences. Timeout percentage is a binomial proportion; its uncertainty is large when the denominator is small. Without this information, the text's distinctions — 'close to zero' (Fig. 8c), 'minimal' (Fig. 8c), 'drastically reduced' (Fig. 10) — cannot be assessed, and the 'near MIG' claim is not quantitatively supported. Please report the number of inferences per IMS point, the number of independent runs, and error bars or confidence intervals for every curve.
[Section V.D.3, Fig. 10, Conclusions] The headline claim that GC 'can deliver levels of isolation approaching those of MIG' is a cross-platform qualitative comparison: MIG is not available on Orin, so the comparison is to A100 MIG results on different hardware, with GPU frequency fixed at 1.02 GHz. The paper's own observation that GC lacks memory isolation (Section III.C and Future Work) further limits the generalization to memory-bound mixed workloads. The conclusion should be qualified as compute-resource isolation under the tested power-unconstrained configuration, not full temporal isolation comparable to MIG.

minor comments (5)

[Title] The title as printed is misspelled: 'Peformance' should be 'Performance'.
[Algorithm 1] Pseudocode typos ('RUNTIMEDBATCH', 'valid←false' split) should be corrected. More importantly, the step sizes for INCREASEFREQUENCY and DECREASEFREQUENCY should be stated, since they affect the reproducibility of f.
[Figures 8–11] Define IMS in the captions and state whether the plotted lines are pointwise means or fitted trend lines; the legends only say 'trend analysis'.
[Section IV.A] Clarify the CUDA/JetPack versions: the A100 uses CUDA 12.1 while Green Contexts require CUDA 12.4; state the exact driver versions used for MPS, MIG, and GC experiments.
[Section V.D] The motivation emphasizes ensembles of diverse models, but the contention tests use the same network for both processes. A sentence acknowledging this limitation and, ideally, one mixed-model experiment would strengthen the applicability of the conclusions.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the maximum-stable-IMS deadline is a measured calibration, and isolation outcomes are observed independently under contention.

full rationale

The paper is an empirical benchmark study, not a derivation. Algorithm 1 measures a maximum stable inference frequency f for each model and isolation technology, and this f is then used as the fixed process's inference rate in the contention experiments. The measured outcome is the timeout percentage of that fixed process when a second process increases its rate. This outcome is not defined by f: the calibration is performed without contention, while the isolation claim depends on what happens under contention. The evidence is contingent, e.g., Green Contexts show poor isolation on the Orin Nano but near-MIG behavior on the AGX, so the conclusion is not forced by the construction. The same-hardware calibration is a standard benchmark design choice rather than a circular reduction: Eq. (1) only converts the measured maximum latency into an IMS value, and the subsequent timeout measurements are independent of that conversion. There is no self-citation chain, no imported uniqueness theorem, and no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. Potential concerns about the finite-sample nature of Algorithm 1 and the absence of an explicit no-contention timeout baseline are statistical validity issues, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on empirical calibration and hardware-behavior assumptions, not on new theoretical entities. The main free parameter is the per-model maximum frequency f, which is measured rather than derived. The assumptions are domain assumptions about NVIDIA hardware behavior, workload representativeness, and the validity of the deadline-setting procedure.

free parameters (1)

Maximum stable inference frequency f per model and technology = Tables II and III, e.g., ConvNeXt-Large on A100 MIG = 52 IMS; on Jetson Orin Nano GC = 18 IMS
Determined empirically by Algorithm 1 from measured inference times and then used to set the deadline for the fixed process in the isolation experiments. It is a fitted measurement, not a theoretical guarantee.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption The evaluated NVIDIA mechanisms (MPS, MIG, Green Contexts) behave as documented in NVIDIA references [8]–[11].
Section III relies on vendor documentation for the mechanisms' semantics, partition rules, and isolation properties.
domain assumption Two concurrently running instances of the same network are a representative proxy for the neural-network ensemble workloads described in the introduction.
Section IV.C sets up the contention experiment with identical models for both processes, but the motivating scenario is ensembles of diverse models.
domain assumption The maximum stable inference frequency measured by Algorithm 1 can be treated as a valid worst-case deadline for the fixed process.
Algorithm 1 and Equation (1) use this measured value as the timing guarantee; the paper does not provide a statistical worst-case bound.
domain assumption The poor isolation observed on the Jetson Orin Nano is caused by power/thermal frequency throttling rather than by Green Contexts' lack of memory isolation or another hardware limitation.
Section V.D.2 and Figure 6 support this via monitoring traces, but the experiment does not directly manipulate the power cap on the same device.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Performance Isolation for Inference Processes in Edge GPU Systems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WDXYMYFQ

@misc{pith2026260107600,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Performance Isolation for Inference Processes in Edge GPU Systems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WDXYMYFQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2601.07600}
}

read the original abstract

This work analyzes the main isolation mechanisms available in modern NVIDIA GPUs: MPS, MIG, and the recent Green Contexts, to ensure predictable inference time in safety-critical applications using deep learning models. The experimental methodology includes performance tests, evaluation of partitioning impact, and analysis of temporal isolation between processes, considering both the NVIDIA A100 and Jetson Orin platforms. It is observed that MIG provides a high level of isolation. At the same time, Green Contexts represent a promising alternative for edge devices by enabling fine-grained SM allocation with low overhead, albeit without memory isolation. The study also identifies current limitations and outlines potential research directions to improve temporal predictability in shared GPUs.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.07600 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Possible MIG instance configurations for the NVIDIA [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Possible GC instance configurations for the NVIDIA [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (8 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Figure of the results showing the effect of different memory sizes and compute units on the NVIDIA A100 using [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Figure of the results showing the effect of different SM assignments on the Jetson Orin Nano using GC for the inference [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Graph analyzing the evolution of the Jetson Orin [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Graph analyzing the evolution of the Jetson Orin [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Percentage of inferences detected as timeouts relative to the total number of inferences, in the case of two parallel processes running the same network. Only the trend of the process performing inference at its calculated maximum frequency (Fixed) is shown, using GPU …

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Percentage of inferences detected as timeouts relative to the total number of inferences, in the case of two parallel processes running the same network. Only the trend of the process performing inference at its calculated maximum frequency (Fixed) is shown, using GPU …

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: Percentage of inferences detected as timeouts relative to the total number of inferences, in the case of two parallel processes running the same network: one performing inference at its calculated maximum frequency (Fixed) and the other progressively increasing its in…

**Figure 11.** Figure 11: Percentage of inferences detected as timeouts relative to the total number of inferences, in the case of four parallel processes running the same network. The plot shows the mean trend of the three fixed processes that perform inference at their calculated maximum (fi…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

Architectural Isolation as a Timing Safety Primitive for Edge AI Medical Devices: Controlled Experimental Evidence on a Shared-Silicon Platform
cs.AR 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 4.0 of 10

Controlled test on NVIDIA Jetson Orin Nano finds that MobileNetV2 inference on CPU path maintains STER=0 but breaches 10 Hz latency budget by 65% under load while GPU path stays under 11 ms, demonstrating independence...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

23 extracted references · 3 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

Road vehicles — functional safety,

ISO, “Road vehicles — functional safety,” Tech. Rep. ISO 26262- 1:2018, International Organization for Standardization, 2018. Edition 2, Replaces ISO 26262-1:2011

2018
[2]

Artificial intelligence — functional safety and ai systems,

ISO/IEC, “Artificial intelligence — functional safety and ai systems,” Tech. Rep. ISO/IEC TR 5469:2024, International Organization for Stan- dardization and International Electrotechnical Commission, Jan. 2024. Edition 1, Published. ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 42

2024
[3]

On Neural Networks Redundancy and Diversity for Their Use in Safety-Critical Systems,

A. Brando, I. Serra, E. Mezzetti, F. J. Cazorla, J. P ´erez-Cerrolaza, and J. Abella, “On Neural Networks Redundancy and Diversity for Their Use in Safety-Critical Systems,”Computer, vol. 56, no. 5, pp. 41–50, 2023

2023
[4]

Exploring diversity in neural architectures for safety,

M. Filipiuk and V . Singh, “Exploring diversity in neural architectures for safety,” inProc. Workshop on Artificial Intelligence Safety (AISafety 2022), (Vienna, Austria), CEUR-WS.org, 2022

2022
[5]

Simple and scalable predictive uncertainty estimation using deep ensembles,

B. Lakshminarayanan, A. Pritzel, and C. Blundell, “Simple and scalable predictive uncertainty estimation using deep ensembles,” 2017

2017
[6]

Ensemble learning: A survey,

O. Sagi and L. Rokach, “Ensemble learning: A survey,”Wiley interdis- ciplinary reviews: data mining and knowledge discovery, vol. 8, no. 4, p. e1249, 2018

2018
[7]

Edge intelligence: A review of deep neural network inference in resource-limited environments,

D. Ngo, H.-C. Park, and B. Kang, “Edge intelligence: A review of deep neural network inference in resource-limited environments,”Electronics, vol. 14, no. 12, p. 2495, 2025

2025
[8]

Multi-process service (mps) overview

NVIDIA Corporation, “Multi-process service (mps) overview.” NVIDIA Documentation, n.d. Accessed Mar. 24, 2025

2025

Show all 23 references

[9]

Multi-instance gpu (mig) technology

NVIDIA Corporation, “Multi-instance gpu (mig) technology.” NVIDIA Documentation, n.d. Accessed Mar. 24, 2025

2025
[10]

Cuda driver api documentation, section 6.35: Green contexts

NVIDIA Corporation, “Cuda driver api documentation, section 6.35: Green contexts.” NVIDIA Documentation, 2025. Version 12.9.1, Last updated June 4, 2025. Accessed Jul. 29, 2025

2025
[11]

Cuda programming guide, section 4.6: Green contexts

NVIDIA Corporation, “Cuda programming guide, section 4.6: Green contexts.” NVIDIA Documentation, 2025. Version 13.1, Last updated December 1, 2025. Accessed Dec. 4, 2025

2025
[12]

Hugging face platform

Hugging Face, “Hugging face platform.” Online platform, 2025. Re- trieved from https://huggingface.co. Accessed Mar. 14, 2025

2025
[13]

Imagenet: A large-scale hierarchical image database,

J. Deng, W. Dong, R. Socher, L.-J. Li, K. Li, and L. Fei-Fei, “Imagenet: A large-scale hierarchical image database,” in2009 IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pp. 248–255, Ieee, 2009

2009
[14]

On accelerating edge ai: Optimizing resource-constrained environments,

J. Sander, A. Cohen, V . R. Dasari, B. Venable, and B. Jalaian, “On accelerating edge ai: Optimizing resource-constrained environments,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.15014, 2025

2025 arXiv
[15]

Marine objects detection using deep learning on embedded edge devices,

D. Heller, M. Rizk, R. Douguet, A. Baghdadi, and J.-P. Diguet, “Marine objects detection using deep learning on embedded edge devices,” in 2022 IEEE International Workshop on Rapid System Prototyping (RSP), pp. 1–7, IEEE, 2022

2022
[16]

Migperf: A comprehensive benchmark for deep learning training and inference workloads on multi-instance gpus,

H. Zhang, Y . Li, W. Xiao, Y . Huang, X. Di, J. Yin, S. See, Y . Luo, C. T. Lau, and Y . You, “Migperf: A comprehensive benchmark for deep learning training and inference workloads on multi-instance gpus,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.00407, 2023

2023 arXiv
[17]

A convnet for the 2020s,

Z. Liu, H. Mao, C.-Y . Wu, C. Feichtenhofer, T. Darrell, and S. Xie, “A convnet for the 2020s,” in2022 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pp. 11966–11976, 2022

2022
[18]

Mobilenetv2: Inverted residuals and linear bottlenecks,

M. Sandler, A. Howard, M. Zhu, A. Zhmoginov, and L.-C. Chen, “Mobilenetv2: Inverted residuals and linear bottlenecks,” 2019

2019
[19]

Deep residual learning for image recognition,

K. He, X. Zhang, S. Ren, and J. Sun, “Deep residual learning for image recognition,” inProceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pp. 770–778, 2016

2016
[20]

An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale,

A. Dosovitskiy, “An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.11929, 2020

2010 arXiv
[21]

Characterizing multi- instance gpu for machine learning workloads,

B. Li, V . Gadepally, S. Samsi, and D. Tiwari, “Characterizing multi- instance gpu for machine learning workloads,” in2022 IEEE Inter- national Parallel and Distributed Processing Symposium Workshops (IPDPSW), pp. 724–731, IEEE, 2022

2022
[22]

Latency and throughput characterization of convolutional neural networks for mobile computer vision,

J. Hanhirova, T. K ¨am¨ar¨ainen, S. Sepp¨al¨a, M. Siekkinen, V . Hirvisalo, and A. Yl¨a-J¨a¨aski, “Latency and throughput characterization of convolutional neural networks for mobile computer vision,” inProceedings of the 9th ACM Multimedia Systems Conference, pp. 204–215, 2018

2018
[23]

A comprehensive performance comparison of dedicated and embedded gpu systems,

A. ¨Ozsoy, “A comprehensive performance comparison of dedicated and embedded gpu systems,”Dicle ¨Universitesi M ¨uhendislik Fak ¨ultesi M¨uhendislik Dergisi, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 1011–1020, 2020. 0 20 40 60 80 IMS 0 5 10 15Timeout Percentage (%) trend analysis vit_b_16 (A100) T...

2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Road vehicles — functional safety,

ISO, “Road vehicles — functional safety,” Tech. Rep. ISO 26262- 1:2018, International Organization for Standardization, 2018. Edition 2, Replaces ISO 26262-1:2011

2018

[2] [2]

Artificial intelligence — functional safety and ai systems,

ISO/IEC, “Artificial intelligence — functional safety and ai systems,” Tech. Rep. ISO/IEC TR 5469:2024, International Organization for Stan- dardization and International Electrotechnical Commission, Jan. 2024. Edition 1, Published. ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 42

2024

[3] [3]

On Neural Networks Redundancy and Diversity for Their Use in Safety-Critical Systems,

A. Brando, I. Serra, E. Mezzetti, F. J. Cazorla, J. P ´erez-Cerrolaza, and J. Abella, “On Neural Networks Redundancy and Diversity for Their Use in Safety-Critical Systems,”Computer, vol. 56, no. 5, pp. 41–50, 2023

2023

[4] [4]

Exploring diversity in neural architectures for safety,

M. Filipiuk and V . Singh, “Exploring diversity in neural architectures for safety,” inProc. Workshop on Artificial Intelligence Safety (AISafety 2022), (Vienna, Austria), CEUR-WS.org, 2022

2022

[5] [5]

Simple and scalable predictive uncertainty estimation using deep ensembles,

B. Lakshminarayanan, A. Pritzel, and C. Blundell, “Simple and scalable predictive uncertainty estimation using deep ensembles,” 2017

2017

[6] [6]

Ensemble learning: A survey,

O. Sagi and L. Rokach, “Ensemble learning: A survey,”Wiley interdis- ciplinary reviews: data mining and knowledge discovery, vol. 8, no. 4, p. e1249, 2018

2018

[7] [7]

Edge intelligence: A review of deep neural network inference in resource-limited environments,

D. Ngo, H.-C. Park, and B. Kang, “Edge intelligence: A review of deep neural network inference in resource-limited environments,”Electronics, vol. 14, no. 12, p. 2495, 2025

2025

[8] [8]

Multi-process service (mps) overview

NVIDIA Corporation, “Multi-process service (mps) overview.” NVIDIA Documentation, n.d. Accessed Mar. 24, 2025

2025