• Title/Summary/Keyword: Open Library

Search Result 822, Processing Time 0.019 seconds

Comparison of Deep Learning Frameworks: About Theano, Tensorflow, and Cognitive Toolkit (딥러닝 프레임워크의 비교: 티아노, 텐서플로, CNTK를 중심으로)

  • Chung, Yeojin;Ahn, SungMahn;Yang, Jiheon;Lee, Jaejoon
    • Journal of Intelligence and Information Systems
    • /
    • v.23 no.2
    • /
    • pp.1-17
    • /
    • 2017
  • The deep learning framework is software designed to help develop deep learning models. Some of its important functions include "automatic differentiation" and "utilization of GPU". The list of popular deep learning framework includes Caffe (BVLC) and Theano (University of Montreal). And recently, Microsoft's deep learning framework, Microsoft Cognitive Toolkit, was released as open-source license, following Google's Tensorflow a year earlier. The early deep learning frameworks have been developed mainly for research at universities. Beginning with the inception of Tensorflow, however, it seems that companies such as Microsoft and Facebook have started to join the competition of framework development. Given the trend, Google and other companies are expected to continue investing in the deep learning framework to bring forward the initiative in the artificial intelligence business. From this point of view, we think it is a good time to compare some of deep learning frameworks. So we compare three deep learning frameworks which can be used as a Python library. Those are Google's Tensorflow, Microsoft's CNTK, and Theano which is sort of a predecessor of the preceding two. The most common and important function of deep learning frameworks is the ability to perform automatic differentiation. Basically all the mathematical expressions of deep learning models can be represented as computational graphs, which consist of nodes and edges. Partial derivatives on each edge of a computational graph can then be obtained. With the partial derivatives, we can let software compute differentiation of any node with respect to any variable by utilizing chain rule of Calculus. First of all, the convenience of coding is in the order of CNTK, Tensorflow, and Theano. The criterion is simply based on the lengths of the codes and the learning curve and the ease of coding are not the main concern. According to the criteria, Theano was the most difficult to implement with, and CNTK and Tensorflow were somewhat easier. With Tensorflow, we need to define weight variables and biases explicitly. The reason that CNTK and Tensorflow are easier to implement with is that those frameworks provide us with more abstraction than Theano. We, however, need to mention that low-level coding is not always bad. It gives us flexibility of coding. With the low-level coding such as in Theano, we can implement and test any new deep learning models or any new search methods that we can think of. The assessment of the execution speed of each framework is that there is not meaningful difference. According to the experiment, execution speeds of Theano and Tensorflow are very similar, although the experiment was limited to a CNN model. In the case of CNTK, the experimental environment was not maintained as the same. The code written in CNTK has to be run in PC environment without GPU where codes execute as much as 50 times slower than with GPU. But we concluded that the difference of execution speed was within the range of variation caused by the different hardware setup. In this study, we compared three types of deep learning framework: Theano, Tensorflow, and CNTK. According to Wikipedia, there are 12 available deep learning frameworks. And 15 different attributes differentiate each framework. Some of the important attributes would include interface language (Python, C ++, Java, etc.) and the availability of libraries on various deep learning models such as CNN, RNN, DBN, and etc. And if a user implements a large scale deep learning model, it will also be important to support multiple GPU or multiple servers. Also, if you are learning the deep learning model, it would also be important if there are enough examples and references.

A Study on the Original Landscape for the Restoration and Maintenance of Buyongjeong and Juhamnu Areas in Changdeokgung Palace (창덕궁 부용정과 주합루 권역의 복원정비를 위한 원형 경관 고찰)

  • Oh, Jun-Young;Yang, Ki-Cheol
    • Journal of the Korean Institute of Traditional Landscape Architecture
    • /
    • v.39 no.4
    • /
    • pp.24-37
    • /
    • 2021
  • This study was conducted to newly examine the original landscape of Buyongjeong(芙蓉亭) and Juhamnu(宙合樓) areas in Changdeokgung Palace(昌德宮), focusing on the modern period including the Korean Empire, and to derive useful research results for restoration and maintenance in the future. The study results can be summarized as follows. First, the artificial island in Buyongji(芙蓉池) was originally made up of a straight layer using well-trimmed processed stone. However, during the maintenance work in the 1960s and 1970s, the artificial island in Buyongji was transformed into a mixture of natural and processed stones. The handrail installed on the upper part of the artificial island in Buyongji is a unique facility that is hard to find similar cases. The handrail existed even during the Korean Empire, but was completely destroyed during the Japanese colonial period. Second, Chwibyeong(翠屛), which is currently located on the left and right of Eosumun(魚水門), is the result of a reproduction based on Northern bamboo in 2008. Although there is a view that sees the plant material of Eosumun Chwibyeong as Rigid-branch yew, the specific species is still vague. Looking at the related data and circumstances from various angles, at least in the modern era, it is highly probable that the Eosumun Chwibyeong was made of Chinese juniper like Donggwanwangmyo Shrine(東關王廟) and Guncheongung(乾淸宮) in Gyeongbokgung Palace(景福宮). Third, the backyard of Juhamnu was a space with no dense trees on top of a stone staircase-shaped structure. The stone stairway in the backyard of Juhamnu was maintained in a relatively open form, and it also functioned as a space to pass through the surrounding buildings. However, as large-scale planting work was carried out in the late 1980s, the backyard of Juhamnu was maintained in the same shape as a Terraced Flower Bed, and it was transformed into a closed space where many flowering plants were planted. Fourth, Yeonghwadang Namhaenggak(暎花堂 南行閣), which had a library function like Gyujanggak(奎章閣) and Gaeyuwa(皆有窩), was destroyed in the late 1900s and was difficult to understand in its original form. Based on modern photographs and sketch materials, this study confirmed the arrangement axis of Yeonghwadang Namhaenggak, and confirmed the shape and design features of the building. In addition, an estimated restoration map referring to 「Donggwoldo(東闕圖)」 and 「Donggwoldohyung(東闕圓形)」 was presented for the construction of basic data.