Pith. sign in

REVIEW

The Design and Implementation of a Scalable DL Benchmarking Platform

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 1911.08031 v1 pith:IO5TNPDY submitted 2019-11-19 cs.DC cs.LGcs.PFstat.ML

classification cs.DCcs.LGcs.PFstat.ML
keywords benchmarkingmlmodelscopeevaluationhardwaremodelplatformmodelsdesign
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
abstract

The current Deep Learning (DL) landscape is fast-paced and is rife with non-uniform models, hardware/software (HW/SW) stacks, but lacks a DL benchmarking platform to facilitate evaluation and comparison of DL innovations, be it models, frameworks, libraries, or hardware. Due to the lack of a benchmarking platform, the current practice of evaluating the benefits of proposed DL innovations is both arduous and error-prone - stifling the adoption of the innovations. In this work, we first identify $10$ design features which are desirable within a DL benchmarking platform. These features include: performing the evaluation in a consistent, reproducible, and scalable manner, being framework and hardware agnostic, supporting real-world benchmarking workloads, providing in-depth model execution inspection across the HW/SW stack levels, etc. We then propose MLModelScope, a DL benchmarking platform design that realizes the $10$ objectives. MLModelScope proposes a specification to define DL model evaluations and techniques to provision the evaluation workflow using the user-specified HW/SW stack. MLModelScope defines abstractions for frameworks and supports board range of DL models and evaluation scenarios. We implement MLModelScope as an open-source project with support for all major frameworks and hardware architectures. Through MLModelScope's evaluation and automated analysis workflows, we performed case-study analyses of $37$ models across $4$ systems and show how model, hardware, and framework selection affects model accuracy and performance under different benchmarking scenarios. We further demonstrated how MLModelScope's tracing capability gives a holistic view of model execution and helps pinpoint bottlenecks.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Pith tools