Analysis of Computational System Analysis of Computational System Performance in Automatic Target Performance in Automatic Target Recognition Recognition Joseph A. O Joseph A. O’ Sullivan Sullivan Michael D. Michael D. DeVore DeVore Electronic Systems and Signals Electronic Systems and Signals Research Laboratory Research Laboratory Supported by: DARPA grant DAAL01-98-C-0074 Boeing Foundation ONR grant N00014-98-1-06-06 Mark A. Franklin Mark A. Franklin Roger D. Chamberlain Roger D. Chamberlain Computer and Communications Computer and Communications Research Center Research Center Washington University in St. Louis School of Engineering and Applied Science
16
Embed
Analysis of Computational System Performance in Automatic ...md9c/presentations/osullivan_ll_phpec_2000.pdf · Analysis of Computational System Performance in Automatic Target Recognition
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Analysis of Computational SystemAnalysis of Computational SystemPerformance in Automatic TargetPerformance in Automatic Target
RecognitionRecognition
Joseph A. OJoseph A. O’’SullivanSullivanMichael D.Michael D. DeVore DeVore
Electronic Systems and SignalsElectronic Systems and SignalsResearch LaboratoryResearch Laboratory
Supported by: DARPA grant DAAL01-98-C-0074Boeing FoundationONR grant N00014-98-1-06-06
Mark A. FranklinMark A. FranklinRoger D. ChamberlainRoger D. Chamberlain
Computer and CommunicationsComputer and CommunicationsResearch CenterResearch Center
Washington University in St. LouisSchool of Engineering and Applied Science
2System Performance in ATR
OverviewOverview
•• Factors of InterestFactors of Interest– Result Quality– Throughput– System Resources
•• Illustration from AutomaticIllustration from AutomaticTarget Recognition (ATR)Target Recognition (ATR)
•• Relating Factors of InterestRelating Factors of Interest•• Computational ModelComputational Model•• ExampleExample•• ConclusionsConclusions•• Future WorkFuture Work
Sample SAR Image (BMP2)
Result Quality vs. Complexity
3System Performance in ATR
IntroductionIntroduction
Goal:Goal:A framework for explicit connections between application resultsA framework for explicit connections between application resultsand system performanceand system performance
Approach:Approach:Model the application and system to relate three factorsModel the application and system to relate three factors1. Quality of Results1. Quality of Results2. Required Throughput (not latency)2. Required Throughput (not latency)3. System Resources3. System Resources
Results:Results:Apply the approach to automatic target recognition (ATR) fromApply the approach to automatic target recognition (ATR) fromsynthetic aperture radar (SAR) imagessynthetic aperture radar (SAR) images
4System Performance in ATR
Factors of InterestFactors of Interest
•• type of platform (commercial off the shelf or custom)type of platform (commercial off the shelf or custom)•• number and speed of processorsnumber and speed of processors•• interconnection network bandwidthinterconnection network bandwidth•• memory bandwidthmemory bandwidth
Dependencies between result quality, throughput, andcomputing resources help determine:
5System Performance in ATR
ATR IllustrationATR Illustration
•• Quality - Probability of erroneous classificationQuality - Probability of erroneous classification•• Throughput - Target images processed per secondThroughput - Target images processed per second•• Resources - Processors, memory and I/O bandwidth, etc.Resources - Processors, memory and I/O bandwidth, etc.
aa=T72
SARSARPlatformPlatform
rr
TargetTargetClassifierClassifier
OrientationOrientationEstimatorEstimator
ââ=T72=T72
θθ=45°=45°^
For classification/estimation components we relate:
•• ATR systems are explicitly or implicitly based on models ofATR systems are explicitly or implicitly based on models oftargets with some complexity targets with some complexity CC
•• More complex target models require more computation but canMore complex target models require more computation but canyield better results; Pr(error)=yield better results; Pr(error)=ff((CC,,ααSARSAR))
•• Target model complexity and computational power determineTarget model complexity and computational power determineoverall system throughput; overall system throughput; TTCHIPCHIP==hh((CC,,ααCOMPCOMP))
•• Given an architecture, both result Given an architecture, both result qualityquality, Pr(error), Pr(error),,and and throughputthroughput, , RR=1/=1/TTCHIPCHIP, are parameterized by, are parameterized bytarget model target model complexitycomplexity
7System Performance in ATR
ATR as an Optimization ProblemATR as an Optimization Problem•• ATR can be viewed as maximizing a measure ofATR can be viewed as maximizing a measure of
goodness over all classes, goodness over all classes, aa, and orientations, , and orientations, θθ..•• Likelihood based approaches maximize the probabilityLikelihood based approaches maximize the probability
density function of an observed image, density function of an observed image, rr..
•• Example:Example: Model pixel Model pixel ii as independent, zero mean, as independent, zero mean,complex conditionally Gaussian, with variance complex conditionally Gaussian, with variance σσii
22((θθ,,aa))
pR !,A r " ,a( ) =
1
# $ i2 " ,a( )
e%
ri
2
$i
2 " ,a( )
i
&
•• Variances, estimated from training data, must be storedVariances, estimated from training data, must be stored
8System Performance in ATR
ATR as a ATR as a Parallelizable Parallelizable OperationOperation
•• Maximizing Maximizing ppRR||θθ,,AA is equivalent to maximizing the log- is equivalent to maximizing the log-likelihood, likelihood, ll((r|r|θθ,,aa) ) = = kk + + ln ln ppRR||θθ,,AA
l r! ,a( ) = " ln# i2 !,a( ) +
ri2
# i2 !,a( )
$
% & &
'
( ) ) i
*
•• Each measured value, Each measured value, rrii , undergoes operations of the, undergoes operations of thesame form for all pixels, orientations, and target classessame form for all pixels, orientations, and target classes
9System Performance in ATR
ATR as a ATR as a ParallelizableParallelizable Operation Operation
ATRATR aa11rr1
••••••
aa22rr2 ATRATR
aammrrm ATRATR
aamaxmax
ll((rr||θθ1, , aa1))^max max ll((rr||θθ, , aa1))θθ
••••••
max max ll((rr||θθ, , aa2))θθ
max max ll((rr||θθ, , aat))θθ
ll((rr||θθ2, , aa2))^
ll((rr||θθt, , aat))^
••••••
maxmax
ll((rr||355355°°,,aa))
ll((rr||55°°,,aa))
ll((rr||00°°,,aa))ll((rr||θθ,,aa))^
rr
σσ22((θθ,, aa))
gg gg gggg gg gg
gg gg gg
•• •• ••
•• •• ••
•• •• ••
••••••
ΣΣll((rr||θθ, , aa))
••••••
••••••
10System Performance in ATR
Quality of Results and ComplexityQuality of Results and ComplexityIn this context, target model complexity relates toIn this context, target model complexity relates to
resolution in the approximation of resolution in the approximation of σσ22((θθ,,aa))
Coarse model of aT62 tank, 1 template with 16K floats
Fine model of a T72 tank (1/5 relative scale),72 templates totaling 1.1M floats
11System Performance in ATR
Result Quality and ThroughputResult Quality and Throughput•• ATR hinges on likelihood ATR hinges on likelihood function evaluationfunction evaluation
•• Each implementation decision sets a Each implementation decision sets a maximummaximumnumbernumber of function evaluations per unit time of function evaluations per unit time
•• Maximum number of function evaluations determinesMaximum number of function evaluations determineswhat what level of modellevel of model can be used can be used
•• Level of model determines ATR Level of model determines ATR performanceperformance
•• Approach is to determine, for any combination ofApproach is to determine, for any combination ofsystem parameters, the best achievable performancesystem parameters, the best achievable performanceas a function of required chip rateas a function of required chip rate
Assumptions:Assumptions:•• Each CPU optimizes over a region of the search spaceEach CPU optimizes over a region of the search space•• Multi-issue CPU with 2 instructions/clock cycleMulti-issue CPU with 2 instructions/clock cycle•• 6 instructions per pixel6 instructions per pixel
TCHIP sec/SAR Image L templates/targetT1 sec/clock cycle M targetsT2 sec/template memory read N pixels/templateT3 sec/SAR Image load P processors
TCHIP = 3LMN
PT1 +
LMN
PT2 + T3
13System Performance in ATR
ExampleExampleT2=T1 with prefetch 16 KB/SAR Image (4B floats)1 GHz clock M=10 targetsVarying target model complexity (L templates/target and N pixels/template)
•• Figures show increase of chip rate provided by more processorsFigures show increase of chip rate provided by more processorsfor fixed probability of errorfor fixed probability of error
•• Alternatively, they show decreased probability of error withAlternatively, they show decreased probability of error withmore processors for fixed chip ratemore processors for fixed chip rate
•• Curve convergence at low chip rates indicates small recognitionCurve convergence at low chip rates indicates small recognitionimprovement at high target model complexitiesimprovement at high target model complexities
•• For 1Gb/s bus, convergence at high chip rates indicates time toFor 1Gb/s bus, convergence at high chip rates indicates time toload SAR image dominates total chip processing timeload SAR image dominates total chip processing time
15System Performance in ATR
ConclusionsConclusions
•• Throughput demands may vary with conditions of useThroughput demands may vary with conditions of use
•• Quality of results as a function of required throughput isQuality of results as a function of required throughput isdetermined in part by system implementationdetermined in part by system implementation
•• Models of application performance and system performance canModels of application performance and system performance canbe combined to find acceptable combinations of result quality,be combined to find acceptable combinations of result quality,throughput, and system design.throughput, and system design.
•• Framework for combining ATR performance and systemFramework for combining ATR performance and systemperformanceperformance
16System Performance in ATR
Future WorkFuture Work
•• Development of ATR algorithms is ongoingDevelopment of ATR algorithms is ongoing– how to get the best quality results from the lowest complexity– accommodate target articulation and other pose parameters– configuration variations within target types
•• Development of more advanced computation modelsDevelopment of more advanced computation models
•• Extensions to model to pixel-level parallelismExtensions to model to pixel-level parallelism