Deep Versus Wide Convolutional Neural Networks
for Object Recognition on Neuromorphic System
Md Zahangir Alom, Theodore Josue, Md Nayim Rahman, Will Mitchell, Chris Yakopcic, and Tarek M. Taha
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Dayton, Dayton, OH 45469, USA.
Email: {alomm1, tjosue1, rahmanm12, mitchellw2, cyakopcic1, ttaha1}@udayton.edu
Abstract— In the last decade, special purpose computing systems,
such as Neuromorphic computing, have become very popular in
the field of computer vision and machine learning for classification
tasks. In 2015, IBM’s released the TrueNorth Neuromorphic
system, kick-starting a new era of Neuromorphic computing.
Alternatively, Deep Learning approaches such as Deep
Convolutional Neural Networks (DCNN) show almost humanlevel accuracies for detection and classification tasks. IBM’s 2016
release of a deep learning framework for DCNNs, called Energy
Efficient Deep Neuromorphic Networks (Eedn). Eedn shows
promise for delivering high accuracies across a number of
different benchmarks, while consuming very low power, using
IBM’s TrueNorth chip. However, there are many things that
remained undiscovered using the Eedn framework for
classification tasks on a Neuromorphic system. In this paper, we
have empirically evaluated the performance of different DCNN
architectures implemented within the Eedn framework. The goal
of this work was discover the most efficient way to implement
DCNN models for object classification tasks using the TrueNorth
system. We performed our experiments using benchmark data
sets such as MNIST, COIL-20, and COIL-100. The experimental
results show very promising classification accuracies with very low
power consumption on IBM’s NS1e Neurosynaptic system. The
results show that for datasets with large numbers of classes, wider
networks perform better when compared to deep networks
comprised of nearly the same core complexity on IBM’s
TrueNorth system.

Keywords— Object recognition; Neuromorphic system; Eedn;
Deep CNN; TrueNorth.

I. INTRODUCTION
We are living in a world consumed by instrumentation that
continuously draws data from many kinds of sensors.
Nowadays big data is a challenging issue, and we need high
performance information processing systems to solve this big
data problem. However, a typical high-performance computing
(HPC) environment (such as a supercomputing center, or data
processing cluster) requires huge amounts of power.
Traditional CPUs with multiple processing cores, and larger
implementation of Deep Learning (DL) model on Graphic
Processing Units (GPU) based computing systems provide
state-of-the-art performance, but it consumes a significant
amount of power for performing computations. Therefore,
different energy efficient and faster computing systems have
been developed in the last few years such as field
programmable gate arrays (FPGA) [1, 2] and the IBM’s
Neurosynaptic TrueNorth chip [15-18]. These specialized
computing systems have some constrains as well. The

constraints are on the number of inputs, memory capacity, and
programmability. Mapping big data processing algorithms to
these specialized computing systems is one of the most
challenging tasks. Among the many available architectures,
IBM’s TrueNorth (TN) system is one of the first Neuromorphic
Chips, which is very efficient in term of power consumption,
and with very high throughput [3, 4]. In addition, the MATLAB
based corelet programming language was developed, providing
a highly scalable objected oriented programming structure [5,
6].
Currently, there are many different applications
implemented on IBM’s TrueNorth system which have shown
promising performance, including object recognition [7], cyber
security [8], optimization approaches on the TrueNorth system
[9], convolutional sparse coding [10], and many more [11].
Data processing algorithms are always undergoing
improvements, and deep learning algorithms have become one
of the most prevalent techniques for extracting complex highlevel features for object classification and recognition. Deep
Learning algorithms, Convolutional Neural Networks (CNN) in
particular, use a layered, or hierarchical data representation and
learning approach [12, 13]. Furthermore, researchers using
modified CNNs have reported improved results for object
recognition on different benchmarks including MNIST, CIFAR
10 or 100, Caltech 101 or 256, ImageNet, and many more [ 13,
14]; as well as improved object detection [15] tasks.
Accordingly, DCNN approaches have become very popular and
widely used in machine learning and computer vision tasks; the
main drawback, however, is the increased computational
complexity of convolutional network models. In most of the
implementations, GPUs are used for training the big networks,
which, in most of the cases are utilizing wider and deeper
networks for training with higher precision (more than or equal
32 bits) on different benchmarks [16]. As the network size
increases, the computational parameters also increase
dramatically. It follows that the increased computational costs
resulting in significantly greater power consumption due to the
use of power hungry GPUs [17].
As the amount of data and data sources are increasing
dramatically, deep learning has been playing a key role by
providing the solutions for Big Data analytics, data
representations, and restoration. In 2015, IBM released the
TrueNorth chip, a very low power Neuromorphic processor
made up of a massively parallel architecture. TrueNorth is
ideally suited to address the big data problem with a significantly
lower power profile than conventional systems. Following the
trend of deep learning development, IBM released the Energy

Efficient Deep Neuromorphic Network (Eedn) framework for
implementing CNN approaches on the TrueNorth system [6].
Accordingly, it becomes very important to implement and
evaluate different Deep Learning models for different
applications on the very power efficient IBM TrueNorth system.
In this implementation, we have implemented different DCNN
architectures utilizing the Eedn framework. The contributions
of this paper are summarized as follows:
▪ Implemented different energy efficient DCNN models
with Eedn framework.
▪ Experimented on three popular benchmarks to evaluate
different architectures of DCNN including MNIST, COIL20, and COIL-100.
▪ Experimented with different deeper and wider deep
convolutional networks and discovered the impact of
deepness and wideness of networks on the TrueNorth
system.
The rest of the paper has been organized in the following way:
Section II explains the related works, Section III presents the
architecture of the TrueNorth system, Section IV discusses the
Eedn framework and implementation details of DCNN on
TrueNorth systems. Results and discussions are given in
Section V. Conclusions with future directions are made in
Section VII.

layers [18]. The piecewise-linear or non-linear activation
functions are used within each of these layers. The dropout
technique has been used for regularizing the overall network
[19]. In addition, drop connection is also used for regularizing
the network. However, in general to evaluate those DCNN
architectures, the general-purpose computing system such as
CPU, GPGPU, and multicore system are used [17]. The
optimization of DCNN models are proposed with respect to
structural and computational optimization. As structural
optimization is of concern, several research studies have been
conducted in the community to improve overall accuracy of the
DCNN model with lesser numbers of computational
parameters, which significantly decreases computational time
and power consumption. Some papers have been published on
structural optimization of DCNN techniques, which is called
SqueezeNet [20]. In most of the cases, these power efficient and
faster models are proposed based on low precision
implementations of a DCNN [21]. In 2015, Y. Bengio et al.,
show that a deep network can achieve very high precision
training networks using only binary weight values [0 1] [22].
Recently, the ternary weight-based CNN is proposed [23]. The
IBM Eedn framework is implemented based on the concept of
ternary connected networks [7]. Another controversy is wide
versus deep convolutional networks. There are many papers
that have been published with full precision implementation on
this topic and there is still some research on going.

Fig. 1. IBM’s Neurosynaptic Cognitive TrueNorth Chips: (a) TrueNorth multi-chip system, (b) a single chip, and (c) a zoomed-in internal
structure of a core.

II. RELATED WORKS
In the deep learning research community, most of the
researcher uses the basic structure of Convolutional Neural
Networks (CNNs) with alternative convolution and maxpooling layer followed by a small number of fully connected

A recently published paper entitled “Do deep learning need to
be deep”, clearly stated the impact of network structure on
overall recognition accuracy. It concluded that the deeper
network (which incorporates more layers for better feature
embedding) provides better accuracy compared to the wider

network (increase number of neurons with larger number of
feature maps in a layer) [24]. In addition, some research was
conducted to evaluate the impact of network structure (deeper
and wider network) on accuracy with the same number of
parameters. This implementation also summarizes that the
deeper network performs better compared to wider networks
[24]. Another study shows that shallow networks are unable to
reach the same levels of accuracy against deep networks with
the same number of network parameters. Eventually, they
demonstrate that deeper networks provide better performance
compared to shallow networks [25].
The question now becomes, is this true in case of the DCNN
with the ternary connect method on TrueNorth system? This
answer has not yet been determined for IBM’s TrueNorth
system using a deep learning training methodology with binary
weights (0,1), which is well suited to map deep learning onto
the TrueNorth system. In 2016, IBM released the Eedn deep
learning framework for implementing deep learning on the
TrueNorth system, which opened a new opportunity to
implement energy efficient deep learning approaches on
Neuromorphic hardware [7]. This deep learning framework is
very power efficient and provides promising accuracies for
image classification tasks. Unlike the implementation of deep
learning on CPU, GPGPU, and multicore systems, it is
necessary to evaluate the impact of network structures on
recognition accuracy for IBM’s Neuromorphic TrueNorth
system. We have empirically evaluated the performance of
different DCNN architectures, tested on different data sets
which will help determine efficient design of DCCN models for
use on the TrueNorth system; this can lead to the development
of additional energy efficient models with better recognition
performance.
III. NEURO-SYNAPTIC COGNITIVE SYSTEM
The traditional von Neumann computing system with a GPU
and a multicore processor consumes an abundance of power
and area. As systems continue to become larger, the power
requirement of these systems have been increasing drastically.
To combat this trend, IBM developed and released the
TrueNorth Neurosynaptic cognitive architecture as shown in
Fig. 2 in 2015. This is an alternative computing system for
implementing machine learning, deep learning, and computer
vision algorithms with very low power and high energy
efficiency [3, 4]. The basic characteristics of IBM’s cognitive
chip are: first, it is based on a non-von Neumann architecture.
Second, it has 4096 cores per chip, each core consists 256
output neurons, each having 256 axons. A 256×256 crossbar of
configurable synapses is in each core. Third, each chip contains
1 million programmable neurons and 256 million synapses.
Fig. 1 shows the single chip and multi-chip systems with
internal architectural details. The overall TrueNorth
architecture is parallel and easily scalable. The internal
operation and communication between axons, neurons and
other units is performed in spiking form. It is a high throughput
Neurosynaptic chip that is capable to run between 1200 and

2600 frames per second using only 25 and 275 𝑚𝑊
respectively (effectively greater than 6,000 frames per second
per watt) [26]. Each individual axon is assigned 1 of 4 axon
types that provides a nine signed bits integer synaptic strength
to the corresponding synapse. All event routing inside the chip
is completed asynchronously. Each neuron is represented with
over 20 individual programmable features, such as synaptic
weight, crossbar weight, threshold, leak, and reset. The
structure of TrueNorth is very efficient because of the following
reasons: first, formation of neurons clusters which is created
from inputs of similar pools of axons. Second, spiking events
only, which are sparse with respect to time and the
communications among the cores performed through a longdistant communication network. Third, the active power of this
architecture is proportional to the firing activity.
A. Data encoding on TrueNorth chip
The human brain works in the spiking form and represents nonbinary information as binary spikes [3] There are four type of
neural coding schemes defined to represent different types of
information in the TrueNorth system. The neural coding
schemes are binary code (B), rate code (R), population code (P),
and time-to-spike (T) code. In general, for data encoding rate
coding scheme is used.
B. Neurons
Different types of neuron models can be modeled in the
TrueNorth system. For purposes of this study, the Leaky
Integrate-and-Fire (LIF) neuron model will be examined. The
following five basic operations describe the LIF neuron model:
synaptic integration, leak integration, threshold, spike firing,
and reset. In general cases, the LIF neuron model can be
described by the following equations:
Synaptic integration:
𝑉𝑗 (𝑡) = 𝑉𝑗 (𝑡 − 1) + ∑𝑁−1
(3)
𝑖=0 𝑥𝑖 (𝑡) 𝑠𝑖
Leak integration:
𝑉𝑗 (𝑡) = 𝑉𝑗 (𝑡) − 𝜆𝑗
(4)
Threshold, fire, and reset
If
𝑉𝑗 (𝑡) ≥ 𝛼𝑗
(5)
𝑉𝑗 (𝑡) = 1
Else
𝑉𝑗 (𝑡) = 0
End-if
The parameter 𝑉𝑗 (𝑡) in the above equations stands for the sum
of membrane potential of the 𝑗𝑡ℎ neuron in the 𝑡 𝑡ℎ timestep,
and 𝑉𝑗 (𝑡 − 1) is the sum membrane potential of the previous
timestep. 𝑥𝑖 (𝑡), and 𝑠𝑖 are the synaptic input as sum of spike
input in the current time step and the signed synaptic weights
respectively. 𝜆𝑗 is the leak value that is subtracted in every timestep from membrane potential. Then the membrane potentials
are compared with the threshold voltage 𝛼𝑗 . If the membrane
potential is greater than or equal to the threshold voltage, the
neuron fires a spike and resets the membrane potential.
C. Crossbar Weights and Synaptic weight
The crossbar weights 𝑤𝑖,𝑗 ∈ {0,1} of the neurosynaptic core are
0 or 1 (representing active or inactive states) and are

represented using a single bit per weight. Moreover, each active
synapse can have one of the four values as its synaptic weight
𝐺
𝑠𝑗 𝑖 depending on the axon type. There are four types of axons
which are determined with the values of {0 1 2 3}. In this work,
the default value of 𝑆𝑗 {8 4 2 1} are used as synaptic weights
[3].
IV. IMPLEMENTATION WITH ENERY EFFICIENT DEEP NETWORKS
(EEDN)
A. Eedn
IBM’s Eedn is a complete deep learning framework for the
TrueNorth Neuromorphic system that is used for training,
mapping the network onto the Neuromorphic chip, and testing
of a DCNN model. This framework consists of different types
of layers to construct deep convolutional architectures. The
layers are: input layer, pre-processing layer, convolution layer,
network in network layer, pooling layer, and drop out layer.
During the training, the convolution layer performs basic
convolutional operation respect to filter with input features of
this layer. For example: if the input dimension is 28x28 and
filter size is 3x3 with 12 feature maps then the output size of
this layer will be 26x26x12. The pooling or sub-sampling
operation is performed using convolution with stride size 2. The
dropout operations are applied with fractional value and we
have used 0.5 in this implementation. In the training phase,
deep neural network is trained using some steps on the GPU
which is given in Algorithm I [7]:

𝑛
In Eq. 7, 𝐺𝑖𝑛 is the number of group of 𝑖 𝑡ℎ layer and 𝐹𝑖−1
is
𝑡ℎ
number of feature maps of 𝑖 − 1
layer. Third, the total
number of cores (TNC) of the architecture must be less or equal
to 4096 cores.

𝑇𝑁𝐶 ≤ 4096

(8)

B. DCNN on TrueNorth:
In this paper, we have empirically evaluated the performances
of different architecture of DCNN on different benchmarks.
The DCNN architecture consist of different components
including: preprocessing layer (P), Convolution layer (C), subsampling layer (S), and Network in Network (NiN) layers. We
have tested different networks; however, the deeper and wide
network structure are shown in Fig. 2 and Fig. 3 respectively.
Here one example network architecture is provided for deep
and wide network which contains 4064 and 4096 cores
respectively. Due to the different hyper parameter of Eedn
including number of feature maps and number of groups, it is
hard to implement a network model with same number of cores.
For example, if case of first implementation of deep model the
number of splitter is 384 which is used in the second
convolution layer in C2. On the other hand, the total number of
splitter is 384+1024 = 1408 which is used in C2 and C4
respectively.

Algorithm I. Training steps for DCNN on TrueNorth
Step 1. Training performs iteratively
Step 2. The network’s response is computed through
the forward pass of network
Step 3. The network errors are calculated with
network outputs and desired outputs
Step 4. The gradient errors are computed at each
synapse in the backward pass
Step 5. Update weight along with gradient respect to
the errors

Fig. 2. Deeper network architecture with 15 layers.

After successfully completing the training process, the network
is mapped onto the IBM’s TrueNorth system. In this case, the
grouping approach is used in the convolution layers. Let’s
considered the following components such as mask size or
kernel size (K), number of features map (F), and the number of
group (G). However, during the implementation of the network
onto the TrueNorth system, the following conditions need to be
satisfied: first, the number of inputs must be less than or equal
to 128.
𝐹
𝐾 × 𝐾 × ≤ 128
(6)
𝐺

Second, the number of group of 𝑖 𝑡ℎ layer must divisible with
the number of feature maps of 𝑖 − 1𝑡ℎ layer.
𝑛
𝐺𝑖𝑛 % 𝐹𝑖−1
=0

(7)

Fig. 3. Wider network model with 9 layers.

V. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The entire experiments have been conducted on a desktop
computer with an Intel ® Core ™ 2 Duo CPU E86 @ 3.33 GHz
processor and 12GB of RAM to evaluate the processing time in
MATLAB (R2015a). The datasets details are given in the
following database section. The model is implemented in

MATLAB, using the integrated programming environment
called corelet programming for IBM’s Neurosynaptic system.
There are two platforms to evaluate, first simulation platform
called Neurosynaptic Simulator for Corelet System (NSCS) and
another is in actual hardware. We have tested this experiment
on both platforms. The running environment (platform) can be
selected by changing the mode parameters of “TN” and
“NSCS”. Exact same program can be run on actual TrueNorth
chip or simulator depending upon flag “TN” or “NSCS”
respectively. It is noted that the outputs of both environment are
almost identical. However, in this implementation, we have
evaluated the performance on a single chip TrueNorth system.
A. Database:
Three popular benchmarks for digit and object recognition such
as MNIST, COIL-20, and COIL-100 datasets are used in this
implementation.

1440 observations (20 objects with 72 poses each) in total,
where 1100 samples are used for training the network and
remaining 300 samples are used for testing [28]. The example
images are shown in the following Fig. 5.
1) COIL-100
COIL-100 dataset is extended dataset of COIL-20. This dataset
contains color images for 100 classes of object. This dataset
contains 7000 Color images where 5000 samples are used for
training and remaining 2000 samples are used for testing in this
implementation. The turntable was rotated through 360

degrees to vary object pose with respect to a fixed color
camera. Images of the objects were taken at pose intervals of
5 degrees. This corresponds to 72 poses per object [29]. Due
to the input size contained of TrueNorth system, we have
resized the input sample to 32x32 pixels. The examples images
of dataset are shown in Fig. 6.

Fig. 4. Example samples from MNIST database

1) MNIST:
MNIST is a one of the benchmark image classification database
[27]. This dataset consists with 60000 training samples and
10000 test samples 28x28 gray-scale image representing digits
ranging from 0 to 9. We did not apply any data-augmentation
except resizing input sample of dataset during this experiment.
The samples images are given in below Fig. 4.

Fig. 6. Example image of COIL-100 dataset.

B. Results
We have evaluated the performance of different architectures
which consist of different numbers of layers and cores on
TrueNorth system. The performance of network varies with
respect to the number of cores. We have tested on MNIST,
COIL-20, and COIL-100 datasets. We have also investigated
the variation of recognition accuracy respect structure of
network with same number of cores on IBM’s TrueNorth.
Accuracy vs number of cores on MNIST

2) COIL-20 dataset:
There are two version of database available for Columbia
Object Image Library (COIL)-20, the first version of this
dataset with background and another version is without
background. In this implementation we have used the training
and testing samples with background. This database contains

Accuracy

Fig. 5. Example images for COIL-20

100
98
96
94
92
90
88
86
84
0

1000

2000

3000

4000

Number of cores
Fig. 7. Testing accuracy versus number of cores on MNIST dataset.

To evaluate the performance on MNIST dataset, we have taken
the default implementation network for MNIST dataset in Eedn
framework and we have varied number of features maps and
groups and testing with different architectures. Fig. 9 shows the
accuracy with respect to the number of cores with different
architecture. The figure clearly shows that the performance
increase with respect to the number of cores used with bigger
networks. Fig. 7 shows that testing accuracy for MNIST dataset
with a network consisted with more cores with bigger structure
and we have achieved around 99.07 percent accuracy with
deeper network. In addition, we have also tested with wide
version the same network with almost same number of cores.
However, from Fig. 8, it can be clearly concluded that the
deeper network provides better testing accuracy compare
against wider network.

different networks, we have conducted experiment with only
3000 iterations. In both experiment of COIL-20 and COIL-100,
we have used batch size 50 and learning rate 0.1 and 0.01.
Accuracy vs number of cores on COIL-20
100
95

Accuracy

1) MNIST:

90
85
80
0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

Number of cores
Deep vs Wide Net on MNIST

Accuracy

99.07

97.66

Deep Net

Wide Net

Network type
Fig. 8. Comparison of testing accuracy of deep versus wide network on
MNIST dataset.

However, we have implemented two version of the network
with 4064 and 4096 cores respectively; one is deeper (increase
number of layers within network) and another one is wider
(increase number of neurons in the network). Fig. 11 shows the
recognition accuracy for COIL-20, where deep networks uses
4064 cores and wide version of network utilizes 4096 cores on
single chip implementation which are shown in Fig. 2 and Fig.
3 respectively. Fig.11 shows the testing recognition accuracy
for COIL-20, the wider version networks provide around
99.36% recognition accuracy whereas the deeper of the
network shows 99.23% accuracy. According to the Fig. 11, it is
clearly concluded that the wider network provides the better
recognition accuracy compare to the deeper network with
almost same number of cores.
Deep vs Wide Net on COIL-20
99.36

Accuracy

2) COIL-20
The following figures show the training loss and accuracy of
this implementation for 3000 iterations. From the Fig. 9, it is
clearly shown that DCNN model on TrueNorth system provides
promising recognition accuracy with only 3000 iterations on
COIL-20 dataset. After round 1000 iteration, we have achieved
almost 100% training accuracy on this dataset.

Fig. 10. Network accuracy respect to the number of cores on COIL-20
dataset.

99.23

Deep Net
Fig. 9. Training loss for COIL-20 only for 3000 iterations

We have also investigated different models on TrueNorth
system with different models with different number of cores
from 480 to 4094 cores shown in Fig. 10. According to the Fig.
10, we have observed the highest accuracy with only around
1400 cores. The very close accuracy is observed with 4064
cores on TrueNorth for COIL-20 dataset. It is noted that for all

Network type

Wide Net

Fig. 11. Testing with respect to deep versus wide network on COIL-20

3) COIL-100
The training loss and training accuracy are shown in Fig. 12.
Fig. 12(a) shows the loss for training. According to the figure,
it can be said that the convergence of the network during
training is fast. Fig. 12(a) shows the training loss for 30,000

iteration and Fig. 12(b) shows the training and testing accuracy
with red and green color respectively.

network shows better results compare to deeper network in this
case. The result shows around 96.8% testing accuracy on both
simulator and TrueNorth chip.
Deep vs Wide Net on COIL-100

(a)

Accuracy

96.8

(b)

94.14

Fig. 12. Training loss and accuracy for COIL-100 dataset: (a) Training loss
and (b) Training and testing accuracy.

Deep Net

The weights updating status during training are shown in Fig.
13.

Wide Net

Network type
Fig. 15. Deeper versus wider network on COIL-100

Fig. 13. Weight update status during training.

We have also conducted the experiment with different wide and
deep networks on COIL-100 for 30000 iterations. As with
COIL-20, we have investigated different network with 520,
840, 2200, 4064, and 4094 cores. The experiment results are
shown in Fig. 14, and it is clearly shown that the bigger network
with more cores perform better compared to the smaller
network. We have achieved the best accuracy with the biggest
network 4096 cores.
Accuracy vs number of cores on COIL-100
100

Accuracy

80

C. Evaluation
When desiring to utilize more cores in IBM’s TrueNorth
Neuromorphic system, it is difficult to implement a network
that utilizes the maximum number of core resources. We were
limited to using a single chip TrueNorth system that contains
4096 cores. However, the architectures we have explored and
evaluated in this experiment are limited to 4096 cores. The
DCNN architecture on TrueNorth, the layers at the beginning
of the network requires more cores whereas the posterior layer
needs less cores for mapping onto the chip. For mapping the
network onto TrueNorth system, the splitter cores are used. It
is observed from the network architecture that the wider
network requires more splitter cores (1408) compare to the
number of splitter cores (384) of deeper network. From the
experimental results, it is clearly observed that the recognition
accuracy varies with respect to the network architecture and
number of cores on TrueNorth system. As the number of classes
increase, the wider network performs better compare against
deeper network with almost same number of cores which are
evaluated with a set of experiment.

60
40
20
0
0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

Number of cores
Fig. 14. Testing accuracy versus number of cores on COIL-100 dataset.

The experimental results for deeper versus wider networks is
shown in Fig. 15. The deeper network contained 15 layers and
4064 cores and wider version of network contained 8 layers
with 4096 cores. The architectures of the deeper and wider
networks are shown in Fig. 2 and Fig. 3 respectively. The wider

In addition, we have implement DCNNS model with Keras and
TensorFlow on the back end on a single GPU machine. This
model consisted with seven layers including Softmax layer and
contains around 0.5 million network parameters and training
with ADAM optimizer with learning rate 0.001. We have
achieved 100% accuracy for both COIL-20 and COIL-100
dataset. On the other hand, we have achieved 99.36% testing
accuracy for COIL-20 and around 97% testing accuracy for
COIL-100 on IBM’s TrueNoth system. Although we have
received 0.64% and around 3% less testing accuracy, the
DCNN models on TrueNorth has significant advantage in term
of power.
D. Power consumpiton
The power consumption of TrueNorth system is compared with
traditional computing system in this section. Traditional

computing systems, such as CPUs and GPUs easily consume
100W or more power, whereas an entire TrueNorth system
consumes only up to 100mW to operate the 4096 cores on it.
Here, we have used almost all cores for object recognition task
with different network architectures. In addition, it is noted that
about 50% of the power is passive power in TrueNorth system.
The overall power requirement for 4096 cores is 100 𝑚𝑊.
However, for 4064 cores of the deeper network, 0.5 ∗
100𝑚𝑊 + (4064/4096) ∗ 50 𝑚𝑊 = 99.64 𝑚𝑊
is
required. We have achieved almost the same level of
recognition accuracy which are achieved by CPU and GPU
system for all datasets. However, implementation on the
TrueNorth system requires significantly lower power with
respect to traditional computing system.
VI. CONCLUSION
This work represents a very important step towards evaluation
of impact of the architecture of DCNN and number of cores on
recognition accuracy in TrueNorth neuromorphic computing
system. We have empirically evaluated the recognition
accuracy of different DCNN models on three popular
benchmarks including MNIST, COIL-20, and COIL 100 on
IBM’s TrueNorth system. We have achieved about 99.07%,
99.36% and 96.8% as the highest testing accuracy on MNIST,
COIL-20 and COIL-100 respectively. The experimental result
shows the wider version of the network outperforms the deeper
version of the network with the same number of cores on the
TrueNorth system. We have achieved the highest accuracy with
the wider network for COIL-20 and COIL-100 datasets with
almost the same number of cores compared to the deeper
network. In the future, we would like to conduct this experiment
with more complex datasets on a multi-chip TrueNorth system.

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]
[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]
[17]
[18]

[19]

[20]

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This work is supported by the US National Science Foundation
(NSF).

[21]

REFERENCES

[22]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

Zhang, Chen, Peng Li, Guangyu Sun, Yijin Guan, Bingjun Xiao, and
Jason Cong. "Optimizing fpga-based accelerator design for deep
convolutional neural networks." In Proceedings of the 2015 ACM/SIGDA
International Symposium on Field-Programmable Gate Arrays, pp. 161170, 2015.
Ren, Ao, et al. "Designing Reconfigurable Large-Scale Deep Learning
Systems Using Stochastic Computing." 2016 IEEE International
Conference on Rebooting Computing. IEEE. 2016.
Merolla, Paul A., et al. "A million spiking-neuron integrated circuit with
a scalable communication network and interface." Science345.6197
(2014): 668-673.
Akopyan, Filipp, et al. "Truenorth: Design and tool flow of a 65 mw 1
million neuron programmable neurosynaptic chip." IEEE Transactions
on Computer-Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and Systems 34.10
(2015): 1537-1557.
Amir, Arnon, et al. "Cognitive computing programming paradigm: a
corelet language for composing networks of neurosynaptic cores." Neural
Networks (IJCNN), The 2013 International Joint Conference on. IEEE,
2013.
Esser, Steve K., et al. "Cognitive computing systems: Algorithms and
applications for networks of neurosynaptic cores." Neural Networks
(IJCNN), The 2013 International Joint Conference on. IEEE, 2013.

[23]
[24]
[25]
[26]

[27]
[28]
[29]

Esser, Steven K., et al. "Convolutional networks for fast, energy-efficient
neuromorphic computing." Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences (2016): 201604850.
Alom, Md Zahangir, and Tarek M. Taha. "Network intrusion detection
for cyber security on neuromorphic computing system." Neural Networks
(IJCNN), 2017 International Joint Conference on. IEEE, 2017.
Alom, Md Zahangir, et al. "Quadratic Unconstrained Binary Optimization
(QUBO) on neuromorphic computing system." Neural Networks
(IJCNN), 2017 International Joint Conference on. IEEE, 2017.
Alom, Md Zahangir, et al. "Convolutional sparse coding on neurosynaptic
cognitive system." Neural Networks (IJCNN), 2017 International Joint
Conference on. IEEE, 2017.
Sawada, Jun, et al. "Truenorth ecosystem for brain-inspired computing:
scalable systems, software, and applications." High Performance
Computing, Networking, Storage and Analysis, SC16: International
Conference for. IEEE, 2016.
LeCun, Yann, Yoshua Bengio, and Geoffrey Hinton. "Deep
learning." Nature521.7553: 436-444 in 2015.
Krizhevsky, Alex, Ilya Sutskever, and Geoffrey E. Hinton. "Imagenet
classification with deep convolutional neural networks." In Advances in
neural information processing systems, pp. 1097-1105 in 2012.
He, Kaiming, Xiangyu Zhang, Shaoqing Ren, and Jian Sun. "Deep
residual
learning
for
image
recognition." arXiv
preprint
arXiv:1512.03385 (2015).
Ren, Shaoqing, et al. "Faster R-CNN: Towards real-time object detection
with region proposal networks." Advances in neural information
processing systems. 2015.
Szegedy, Christian, et al. "Going deeper with convolutions." Proceedings
of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. 2015.
Coates, Adam, et al. "Deep learning with COTS HPC
systems." International Conference on Machine Learning. 2013.
Y. LeCun, L. Bottou, Y. Bengio, and P. Haffner. Gradient-based learning
applied to document recognition.Proceedings of the IEEE, november
1998.
Srivastava, Nitish, et al. "Dropout: a simple way to prevent neural
networks from overfitting." Journal of machine learning research15.1
(2014): 1929-1958.
Iandola, Forrest N., et al. "SqueezeNet: AlexNet-level accuracy with 50x
fewer parameters and< 0.5 MB model size." arXiv preprint
arXiv:1602.07360 (2016).
Gupta, Suyog, et al. "Deep learning with limited numerical
precision." Proceedings of the 32nd International Conference on
Machine Learning (ICML-15). 2015.
Courbariaux, Matthieu, Yoshua Bengio, and Jean-Pierre David.
"Binaryconnect: Training deep neural networks with binary weights
during propagations." Advances in Neural Information Processing
Systems. 2015.
Zhu, Chenzhuo, et al. "Trained ternary quantization." arXiv preprint
arXiv:1612.01064 (2016).
Ba, Jimmy, and Rich Caruana. "Do deep nets really need to be
deep?." Advances in neural information processing systems. 2014.
Urban, Gregor, et al. "Do Deep Convolutional Nets Really Need to be
Deep and Convolutional?." arXiv preprint arXiv:1603.05691 (2016).
Cassidy, Andrew S., et al. "Cognitive computing building block: A
versatile and efficient digital neuron model for neurosynaptic
cores." Neural Networks (IJCNN), the 2013 International Joint
Conference on. IEEE, 2013.
LeCun, Yann, et al. "Gradient-based learning applied to document
recognition." Proceedings of the IEEE 86.11 (1998): 2278-2324.
S. A. Nene, S. K. Nayar and H. Murase, ”Columbia Object Image Library
(COIL-20)," Technical Report CUCS-005-96, February 1996.
S. A. Nene, S. K. Nayar and H. Murase, "Columbia Object Image Library
(COIL-100),"Technical Report CUCS-006-96, February

