Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Comparative Study of Deep Learning Software Frameworks

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 1511.06435 v3 pith:C6N6J5SU submitted 2015-11-19 cs.LG

classification cs.LG
keywords performancedeepframeworksnetworkstheanolearningbestconvolutional
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
read the original abstract

Deep learning methods have resulted in significant performance improvements in several application domains and as such several software frameworks have been developed to facilitate their implementation. This paper presents a comparative study of five deep learning frameworks, namely Caffe, Neon, TensorFlow, Theano, and Torch, on three aspects: extensibility, hardware utilization, and speed. The study is performed on several types of deep learning architectures and we evaluate the performance of the above frameworks when employed on a single machine for both (multi-threaded) CPU and GPU (Nvidia Titan X) settings. The speed performance metrics used here include the gradient computation time, which is important during the training phase of deep networks, and the forward time, which is important from the deployment perspective of trained networks. For convolutional networks, we also report how each of these frameworks support various convolutional algorithms and their corresponding performance. From our experiments, we observe that Theano and Torch are the most easily extensible frameworks. We observe that Torch is best suited for any deep architecture on CPU, followed by Theano. It also achieves the best performance on the GPU for large convolutional and fully connected networks, followed closely by Neon. Theano achieves the best performance on GPU for training and deployment of LSTM networks. Caffe is the easiest for evaluating the performance of standard deep architectures. Finally, TensorFlow is a very flexible framework, similar to Theano, but its performance is currently not competitive compared to the other studied frameworks.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Leaf diseases detection using deep learning methods

    cs.LG 2024-12 conditional novelty 2.0 of 10

    The work applies existing CNN architectures to leaf disease classification and claims high accuracy, but offers no fundamentally new scientific result.

Pith tools