Limits...
Comparative Study on Statistical-Variation Tolerance Between Complementary Crossbar and Twin Crossbar of Binary Nano-scale Memristors for Pattern Recognition.

Truong SN, Shin S, Byeon SD, Song J, Mo HS, Min KS - Nanoscale Res Lett (2015)

Bottom Line: In this comparative study, 10 greyscale images and 26 black-and-white alphabet characters are tested using the circuit simulator to compare the recognition rate with varying statistical variation and correlation parameters.As with the simulation results of 10 greyscale image recognitions, the twin crossbar shows better recognition rate by 4 % on average than the complementary one, when the inter-array correlation = 1 and intra-array correlation = 0.When the inter-array correlation = 1 and intra-array correlation = 1, the twin architecture is better by 6 % on average than the complementary one.By summary, we can conclude that the twin crossbar is more robust than the complementary one under the same amounts of statistical variation and correlation.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: School of Electrical Engineering, Kookmin University, 77, Jeongneung-ro, Seongbuk-gu, Seoul, 136-702, South Korea. sontn@kookmin.ac.kr.

ABSTRACT
This paper performs a comparative study on the statistical-variation tolerance between two crossbar architectures which are the complementary and twin architectures. In this comparative study, 10 greyscale images and 26 black-and-white alphabet characters are tested using the circuit simulator to compare the recognition rate with varying statistical variation and correlation parameters.As with the simulation results of 10 greyscale image recognitions, the twin crossbar shows better recognition rate by 4 % on average than the complementary one, when the inter-array correlation = 1 and intra-array correlation = 0. When the inter-array correlation = 1 and intra-array correlation = 1, the twin architecture can recognize better by 5.6 % on average than the complementary one.Similarly, when the inter-array correlation = 1 and intra-array correlation = 0, the twin architecture can recognize 26 alphabet characters better by 4.5 % on average than the complementary one. When the inter-array correlation = 1 and intra-array correlation = 1, the twin architecture is better by 6 % on average than the complementary one. By summary, we can conclude that the twin crossbar is more robust than the complementary one under the same amounts of statistical variation and correlation.

No MeSH data available.


The comparison of recognition rate between the complementary and twin architectures for 26 black-and-white alphabet characters. a Inter-array correlation = 0 and intra-array correlation = 0. b Inter-array correlation = 0 and intra-array correlation = 1. c Inter-array correlation = 1 and intra-array correlation = 0. d Inter-array correlation = 1 and intra-array correlation = 1
© Copyright Policy - OpenAccess
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4608951&req=5

Fig8: The comparison of recognition rate between the complementary and twin architectures for 26 black-and-white alphabet characters. a Inter-array correlation = 0 and intra-array correlation = 0. b Inter-array correlation = 0 and intra-array correlation = 1. c Inter-array correlation = 1 and intra-array correlation = 0. d Inter-array correlation = 1 and intra-array correlation = 1

Mentions: In Fig. 8, we simulated the recognition rate for the 26 alphabet characters with 8 × 8 pixels. In more detail, in Fig. 8a the inter-array correlation = 0 and the intra-array correlation = 0. In Fig. 8b, the inter-array correlation = 0 and the intra-array correlation = 1. In Fig. 8c, the inter-array correlation = 1 and the intra-array correlation = 0. In Fig. 8d, the inter-array correlation = 1 and the intra-array correlation = 1. As shown in Fig. 8c, on average, the twin crossbar shows better recognition rate by 4.5 %. With the same amounts of variation in memristance, the twin architecture can recognize better by 6 % than the complementary one when both the inter-array and intra-array correlations are 1, as shown in Fig. 8d.Fig. 8


Comparative Study on Statistical-Variation Tolerance Between Complementary Crossbar and Twin Crossbar of Binary Nano-scale Memristors for Pattern Recognition.

Truong SN, Shin S, Byeon SD, Song J, Mo HS, Min KS - Nanoscale Res Lett (2015)

The comparison of recognition rate between the complementary and twin architectures for 26 black-and-white alphabet characters. a Inter-array correlation = 0 and intra-array correlation = 0. b Inter-array correlation = 0 and intra-array correlation = 1. c Inter-array correlation = 1 and intra-array correlation = 0. d Inter-array correlation = 1 and intra-array correlation = 1
© Copyright Policy - OpenAccess
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4608951&req=5

Fig8: The comparison of recognition rate between the complementary and twin architectures for 26 black-and-white alphabet characters. a Inter-array correlation = 0 and intra-array correlation = 0. b Inter-array correlation = 0 and intra-array correlation = 1. c Inter-array correlation = 1 and intra-array correlation = 0. d Inter-array correlation = 1 and intra-array correlation = 1
Mentions: In Fig. 8, we simulated the recognition rate for the 26 alphabet characters with 8 × 8 pixels. In more detail, in Fig. 8a the inter-array correlation = 0 and the intra-array correlation = 0. In Fig. 8b, the inter-array correlation = 0 and the intra-array correlation = 1. In Fig. 8c, the inter-array correlation = 1 and the intra-array correlation = 0. In Fig. 8d, the inter-array correlation = 1 and the intra-array correlation = 1. As shown in Fig. 8c, on average, the twin crossbar shows better recognition rate by 4.5 %. With the same amounts of variation in memristance, the twin architecture can recognize better by 6 % than the complementary one when both the inter-array and intra-array correlations are 1, as shown in Fig. 8d.Fig. 8

Bottom Line: In this comparative study, 10 greyscale images and 26 black-and-white alphabet characters are tested using the circuit simulator to compare the recognition rate with varying statistical variation and correlation parameters.As with the simulation results of 10 greyscale image recognitions, the twin crossbar shows better recognition rate by 4 % on average than the complementary one, when the inter-array correlation = 1 and intra-array correlation = 0.When the inter-array correlation = 1 and intra-array correlation = 1, the twin architecture is better by 6 % on average than the complementary one.By summary, we can conclude that the twin crossbar is more robust than the complementary one under the same amounts of statistical variation and correlation.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: School of Electrical Engineering, Kookmin University, 77, Jeongneung-ro, Seongbuk-gu, Seoul, 136-702, South Korea. sontn@kookmin.ac.kr.

ABSTRACT
This paper performs a comparative study on the statistical-variation tolerance between two crossbar architectures which are the complementary and twin architectures. In this comparative study, 10 greyscale images and 26 black-and-white alphabet characters are tested using the circuit simulator to compare the recognition rate with varying statistical variation and correlation parameters.As with the simulation results of 10 greyscale image recognitions, the twin crossbar shows better recognition rate by 4 % on average than the complementary one, when the inter-array correlation = 1 and intra-array correlation = 0. When the inter-array correlation = 1 and intra-array correlation = 1, the twin architecture can recognize better by 5.6 % on average than the complementary one.Similarly, when the inter-array correlation = 1 and intra-array correlation = 0, the twin architecture can recognize 26 alphabet characters better by 4.5 % on average than the complementary one. When the inter-array correlation = 1 and intra-array correlation = 1, the twin architecture is better by 6 % on average than the complementary one. By summary, we can conclude that the twin crossbar is more robust than the complementary one under the same amounts of statistical variation and correlation.

No MeSH data available.