1
Predictive Modeling of Run Time for Model
and Data Distributed Inferencing Using
Gradient Boosting Regression
Scott Brown∗† , David Harman∗† , Cleon Anderson∗† , Matthew Dwyer∗ ,
∗ DEVCOM Army Research Laboratory, Army Research Directorate, MD USA
† Parsons Corporation, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD USA
{david.c.harman10, scott.e.brown96, cleon.r.anderson}.ctr@army.mil,
{matthew.r.dwyer7,
Abstract—In the realm of Internet of Things (IoT)
systems, accurately forecasting the runtime of Infer-
encing models on heterogeneous devices is paramount
for optimizing resource allocation, particularly in the
contexts of Model Distributed Inferencing (MDI) and
Data Distributed Inferencing (DDI). This paper delves
into the application of Gradient Boosting Regression
(GBR) as a predictive modeling technique for estimating
runtime in both MDI and DDI scenarios. GBR presents
an equitable trade-off between interpretability, robust-
ness against noise, and suitability for moderately sized
datasets. The study reviews previous research on IoT
inference optimization. It accentuates the multifaceted
intricacies of device diversity and the significance of
model interpretability within MDI and DDI setups. The
primary contribution of this research is the novel appli-
cation of the GBR model to predict machine learning
inferencing runtime in MDI and DDI contexts. This
approach is invaluable when empirical data is limited
and characterizing the behavior of newly introduced
devices is imperative. The paper elaborates on the GBR
algorithm’s utilization, hyperparameters, and custom
loss functions tailored explicitly for MDI and DDI. The
results section exemplifies GBR’s performance across
various computational regimes, including MDI and DDI.
It offers insights into the model’s balance between ac-
curacy and complexity. A performance comparison with
prior models underscores GBR’s efficacy in predicting
runtime in MDI and DDI. This work contributes to the
ongoing discourse on IoT optimization and predictive
modeling.
I. Introduction
A. Background and Motivation
Many Internet of Things (IoT) devices face re-
source constraints due to their small size. With
the growing prevalence of these devices, innovative
strategies for conducting inferencing on resource-
constrained IoT devices are becoming increasingly
imperative. While cloud computing often serves as
a means to offload resource-intensive computations,
there are situations where this approach may not
be feasible, particularly in high-stakes scenarios.In
addition to providing latency and scalability, edge
computing must accommodate resource-intensive
demands such as DNN and coordination among edge
devices in heterogeneous processing environments
and dynamic network conditions [1]. In response to
this challenge, innovative solutions have emerged,
notably Model Distributed Inferencing (MDI) and
Data Distributed Inferencing (DDI), which dis-
tribute the computational workload across multiple
devices at the network’s edge. The effectiveness of
these approaches hinges on two critical factors: the
accuracy of the inferencing results and the time
required to execute these tasks.
Both MDI and DDI processes necessitate the
exchange of data between devices. Given the di-
versity in resources among IoT devices, it becomes
paramount to comprehensively understand the infer-
encing run-time of each device under varying band-
width constraints. Additionally, gaining insights into
the resource cost associated with data offloading
between nodes is essential for assessing the trade-
offs in deploying MDI or DDI. It is important to
acknowledge that modeling this process for all pos-
sible operational scenarios is impractical. Therefore,
there is a pressing need to develop a method capable
of estimating trade-offs beyond benchmarking data.
One of the challenges in creating such models
lies in the inherent noise and intricate nonlinearity
present in the data derived from benchmarking ex-
ercises. Conventional linear models, such as multiple
regression, are ill-suited for handling these complex-
ities, as they struggle to generalize effectively. One
viable approach to mitigating this issue is to employ
Ridge Regression, wherein the regression coefficients
are penalized. This regularization technique signifi-
cantly enhances the model’s predictive capabilities.
However, it comes at the cost of interpretability, a

critical element in comprehending how different sub-
variants interact within the system. In the context of
this research study, the attainment of requisite gran-
ularity for neural network processing necessitates
the execution of multiple benchmarking iterations,
rendering this approach operationally cumbersome.
To address this challenge innovatively, we turn to
the application of boosting methodologies. Boosting,
a prominent machine learning technique, orches-
trates the amalgamation of predictions generated by
multiple individual models, typically characterized
as weak learners, thereby engendering a prediction
model of heightened accuracy and robustness. The
underpinning principle of boosting revolves around
the sequential training of a series of models, each
directed towards rectifying the misclassifications
encountered by its predecessor. This sequential
ensemble of models collectively contributes to the
formulation of definitive predictions. In the context
of the present study, Gradient Boosting Regression
(GBR) assumes a pivotal role in predicting run-
time duration. Several intrinsic attributes of GBR
contribute to its selection as the predictive model,
including interpretability, resilience to noise, ability
to capture non-linear relationships within data, and
suitability for handling modestly sized datasets.
This deliberate choice strikes a judicious equilibrium
between pursuing heightened predictive precision
and managing model complexity. Notably, this se-
lection proves particularly advantageous in scenarios
characterized by constraints on data availability
and in situations where the elucidation of nuanced
intricacies within the prediction process assumes
paramount significance.
B. Research Objectives
C. Contribution of the Study
II. Related Work
A. Review of Previous Research on IoT Inference
Optimization
This section examines methods for predicting
run times on IoT devices and explores DDI/MDI
predictions. Effective task scheduling in heteroge-
neous device environments necessitates thoroughly
considering resource disparities among such devices,
as highlighted by [2]. It is imperative to possess
in-depth knowledge of these diverse devices’ archi-
tectures, capabilities, and, in some cases, energy
efficiency profiles to optimize their performance.
[3], for example, predict both power consump-
tion and performance for applications that run on
heterogeneous computing systems. They employ a
multifaceted approach to achieve this, including
2
identifying machine-independent application phases
via offline benchmark analysis, using neural network
models to analyze intricate cross-platform relation-
ships, and integrating performance counter mea-
surements during run-time to increase prediction
accuracy.
Interpretability is a crucial consideration when
it comes to predictive modeling of IoT devices.
Gradient-boosting models offer easily understand-
able results, particularly those based on gradient-
boosted decision trees. This interpretability is valu-
able for gaining insights into the factors influenc-
ing predictions, such as run-time in [3] research.
Their use of neural networks can pose challenges in
interpretability [4], making it less straightforward
to discern the critical determinants of run-time.
In addition, gradient-boosting models inherently
produce feature importance scores [5], which aid
in identifying influential factors within applications
and architectures. These models exhibit robustness
[6] to outliers within datasets, gracefully handling
extreme cases without necessitating extensive data
preprocessing. This resilience is especially relevant
when dealing with smaller datasets [7], as gradient
boosting models often yield reliable results without
the need for intricate hyperparameter tuning, sim-
plifying the implementation process compared to the
more complex and data-demanding nature of neural
networks.
[8] measured the performance of specific hardware
devices when running machine learning models.
They considered various metrics, including power
consumption, inference time, and accuracy, provid-
ing insights into how different devices perform under
various conditions and workloads. This approach
can be valuable for selecting the most appropriate
hardware for specific AI tasks. In contrast, we use a
gradient-boosting regressor to estimate run-time on
heterogeneous devices, creating a predictive model
based on historical data. Our approach relies on
statistical and machine learning techniques to make
run-time predictions without directly measuring the
devices’ performance. This approach is practical
when empirical data is limited and new devices
entering an ecosystem require characterizing.
B. Existing Predictive Modeling Approaches
C. Gap in the Literature
III. Methodology
In this section, we will discuss the methodology
for predicting run time using the Gradient Boosting
Regressor algorithm.

A. Testbed and Experimental Setup
1) Testbed Structure: The testbed encompasses
devices with varying computational capabilities,
ranging from high-performance nodes equipped with
NVIDIA V100 GPUs and 8 CPU cores (representing
server offload scenarios) to CPU-only devices with
2 to 6 CPU cores and memory capacities ranging
from 2GB to 8GB at the bottom of the network
hierarchy. Table I provides a detailed description of
these device classes.
Node Class Cores Memory (GB)
T3 6 8
T2 4 4
T1 2 2
TABLE I: Description of Node Classes in the
Testbed
2) Network Topology: Devices within the testbed
are interconnected using a software-defined network
(SDN). This SDN enables precise configuration of
the network, including control over bandwidth be-
tween devices. This flexibility allows us to investi-
gate distributed performance under various band-
width constraints.
3) Bandwidth Manipulation: To evaluate the im-
pact of varying bandwidth on inference performance,
we perform bandwidth manipulation. Data throt-
tling is implemented through the SDN by specifying
ports for throttling. Bandwidths ranging from 1
Mbps (representing severely limited networks) to
100 Mbps (considered unconstrained for testing) are
targeted.
4) Experiments: Our experiments are categorized
into three main device types: CPU-only, GPU-only,
and mixed CPU/GPU devices. Each category is fur-
ther divided into subcategories based on bandwidth
constraints. This experimental setup extends the
original work [5] by introducing heterogeneous de-
vices and comparing multiple distributed inferencing
techniques.
B. Data Preprocessing
Data preprocessing involves cleaning and trans-
forming the dataset for modeling. We perform the
following steps:
1) Feature Selection: We begin by carefully
selecting the pertinent columns for our
analysis, which include ’bandwidth,’
’nodes,’ ’run_time_per_sec,’ and ’dist_type
(MDI/DDI).’
2) Categorical Encoding: To facilitate our analysis,
we employ one-hot encoding to transform the
3
’dist_type’ column, converting categorical data
into a numerical format.
3) Data Filtering: To focus our study on relevant
cases, we filter the dataset, retaining only those
records where the bandwidth values are less
than or equal to 40.
C. Predictive Modeling with Gradient Boosting Re-
gressor
In this study, we employ a Gradient Boosting
Regressor (GBR) [9] to predict the run-time (RT ) of
specific computational tasks. The predictive model
is constructed as an ensemble of decision trees,
where each tree contributes to the final prediction
in a weighted manner. The goal is to minimize the
mean squared error (MSE) between the predicted
and actual run-time values.
Let n denote the number of observations
in our dataset, each characterized by a tuple
(BWi , N odei , DeviceT ypei , RTi ), where BWi rep-
resents bandwidth, N odei is the node identifier,
DeviceT ypei signifies the device type, and RTi is
the actual run-time.
The GBR model is expressed as:
∑
RT (x) = [α · f (x, θ)]
Here:
RT (x) denotes the predicted run-time for anThe
input vector x, comprising bandwidth, node, and
device type. α represents the weight assigned
to each decision tree in the ensemble. f (x, θ)
corresponds to an individual decision tree pa-
rameterized by θ.
primary objective is to minimize the MSE, defined
as:
1 ∑[ ]
M SE = (RTi − RT (xi ))2
n
This expression quantifies the squared discrepan-
cies between actual run-time values (RTi ) and the
model’s predictions (RT (xi )) for each observation.
IV. Training Process
The GBR model is trained iteratively. In each
iteration, a new decision tree is fitted to the neg-
ative gradient of the MSE loss function concerning
the current ensemble’s predictions. This iterative
process adjusts the model to minimize errors by
strategically incorporating decision trees that rectify
previous prediction residuals.
The final GBR model is characterized by:
RT (x) = α1 ·f1 (x, θ1 )+α2 ·f2 (x, θ2 )+. . .+αk ·fk (x, θk )
 4

Here: 2) Hyperparameter Tuning: We perform hyper-

parameter tuning using a randomized search ap-
α1 , α2 , . . . , αk signify the weights associated with
proach. The following hyperparameters are explored
each decision tree. during the search:
f1 (x, θ1 ), f2 (x, θ2 ), . . . , fk (x, θk )
TABLE III: GBR Hyperparameters Search
are individual decision trees parameterized by θ.
Our GBR algorithm iteratively optimizes both the Hyperparameter Value Range
weights and parameters of these decision trees Loss Function Custom
during training, leading to an ensemble model that Learning Rate Uniform distribution be-
tween 0.001 and 0.299
minimizes the MSE and offers accurate run-time Number of Estima- Random integer between
predictions based on the predictor variables (BW , tors 100 and 999
N ode, DeviceT ype). Subsample Uniform distribution be-
In our experiments, we employed the scikit-learn tween 0.5 and 0.999
library [10] for gradient boosting regression. The Criterion Friedman Mean Squared Er-
ror, Squared Error
hyperparameters chosen for our GBR model are Minimum Samples Random integer between 1
detailed in Table II. These settings were carefully Split and 9
selected to balance model complexity and predictive Minimum Samples Random integer between 1
performance for our specific regression task. Leaf and 3
Maximum Depth Random integer between 1
TABLE II: Gradient Boost Hyperparameters and 2

Hyperparameter Value Description

Learning Rate 0.01 Step size for gradient boosting
The randomized search is performed with cross-
Number of Estima- 100 Number of boosting stages validation, and the best hyperparameters are se-
tors lected. We created Custom loss functions to assess
Loss Function Quantile Optimization Loss Function
Subsample 0.5 Fraction of data used for train- the GBR model performance based on specific
ing criteria, enhancing the depth of evaluation. These
Criterion Friedman Split quality criterion
Mean custom loss functions include:
Squared
Error TABLE IV: Custom Loss Functions
Min Samples Split 2 Min samples required for a
split Loss Function Description
Custom Percentage Error Loss Quantifies the percentage error between predicted and
Min Samples Leaf 1 Min samples required for a leaf (customp el oss) actual values, providing insights into error magnitudes.
node Custom Huber Loss Combines quadratic and linear loss components to effec-
Max Depth 2 Max depth of individual trees (customh uberl oss) tively handle outliers in the data.
Custom Weighted Loss Allows for the assignment of distinct weights to errors
(customw eightedl oss) based on their significance, accommodating scenarios
where specific errors hold more weight.
The learning rate (0.01) determines the step Custom Outlier
(customo utlierl oss)
Loss Designed to identify errors that exceed a specified thresh-
old as outliers, proving valuable when handling exception-
size for gradient boosting, and 100 estimators were Custom Quantile Loss
ally deviant observations.
Tailored for quantile regression analysis, this function
used to construct a robust ensemble. We employed (customq uantilel oss) evaluates quantile-specific errors, making it suitable for
various quantile-related investigations.
the Quantile loss function to cater to our specific
quantile regression task. A subsample fraction of The custom loss functions introduced herein serve
0.5 was introduced to introduce randomness and as integral components in the process of model
enhance model generalization. evaluation and selection. The custompercentage error
Furthermore, the criterion for assessing the loss function quantifies percentage errors, enabling
quality of splits during tree construction was the a nuanced understanding of error magnitudes within
Friedman Mean Squared Error, and we specified a the model assessments. In contrast, the customhuber
minimum of 2 samples required for a node to be split loss function adeptly combines quadratic and lin-
further, with a minimum of 1 sample required for ear loss components, bolstering the model’s re-
leaf nodes. To control model complexity, individual silience to outliers—a critical attribute when con-
trees in our ensemble had a maximum depth of 2 [9]. fronted with extreme data points. Furthermore, the
customweighted loss function empowers the assign-
1) Algorithm Overview: The Gradient Boosting ment of varying error weights, accommodating sce-
Regressor is an ensemble learning method that narios wherein specific errors bear more substantial
builds an additive model in a forward stage-wise significance than others. Customoutlier loss plays a
manner. It combines the predictions of multiple base crucial role in the identification and mitigation of
estimators (decision trees) to improve predictive errors surpassing predetermined thresholds, particu-
accuracy. larly advantageous when addressing outliers. Lastly,

the customquantile loss function is meticulously tai-
lored for the realm of quantile regression, diligently
evaluating quantile-specific errors and rendering it-
self adaptable to a spectrum of quantile-related in-
vestigations. Collectively, these functions engender
a holistic evaluation of gradient boosting models,
embracing diverse loss criteria and ensuring their
adaptability across a gamut of data characteristics.
This systematic approach substantially heightens
the prospects of selecting the most apropos gradient
boosting model tailored to the idiosyncrasies of spe-
cific datasets and research objectives. Furthermore,
the scrupulous documentation of results and custom
loss functions augments transparency and bolsters
the reproducibility of scientific research endeavors.
A. Evaluation Metrics
In the evaluation of our model’s performance, we
employ the following metrics: Mean Absolute Error
(MAE): This metric quantifies the average absolute
difference between the predicted and actual run
times, providing a measure of the model’s accuracy.
R-squared (R2 ) Score: The R2 score is utilized to
gauge the proportion of variance in the run times
that can be predicted by our model, elucidating its
predictive capability.
Cross-Validation Analysis
To rigorously assess our model’s generalization
performance, we adopt a k-fold cross-validation
methodology. Specifically, we employ a five-fold
cross-validation approach (k=5) to scrutinize the
model’s robustness and performance across distinct
data subsets.
V. Experimental Results
In this section, we present the experimental re-
sults obtained from the Gradient Boosting Regressor
model.
A. Description of the Dataset
The dataset used for experimentation consists
of records with columns ’bandwidth,’ ’nodes,’
’run_time_per_sec,’ and ’dist_type.’ It was pre-
processed as described in the Data Preprocessing
section.
B. Predictive Modeling Results
In Table IV, we summarize the results of training
a Gradient gradient-boosting regressor model on our
dataset:
The table presents the performance metrics for a
Gradient gradient-boosting regressor applied to an
5
TABLE V: Performance Metrics of Gradient Boost-
ing Regressor
Compute Nodes Mean Absolute Error (MAE) R-Squared
2 8.76 0.99
3 118.78 0.95
4 125.83 0.98
MDI and DDI data dataset. The regression model
utilized bandwidth, compute nodes, and bandwidth
reserved as predictor variables to estimate the re-
sponse variable, the runtime of inferencing on IoT
devices.
Compute Nodes: This column represents the num-
ber of compute nodes employed in the computa-
tional tasks. As a critical factor in parallel com-
puting, compute nodes profoundly impact runtime;
consequently, we segment the data based on the
number of compute nodes.
Mean Absolute Error (MAE): The MAE measures
the absolute differences between the predicted and
actual values. It quantifies the average magnitude
of errors in predicting the runtime. Smaller MAE
values indicate better model accuracy.
R-Squared (R²): R-squared is a measure of the
goodness of fit of the regression model. It ranges
from 0 to 1, with higher values indicating a better
fit. In this context, R² reflects the proportion of
the variance in runtime explained by the predictor
variables. The results in Table 1 reveal insightful
information: Notably, the GBR achieved a low
Mean Absolute Error (MAE) of 8.76 when two (2)
compute nodes were present. This value indicates
that the model’s predictions were, on average, very
close to the actual runtime values. Moreover, the
R-squared value of 0.99 indicates that the chosen
predictors explained approximately 99/
When the number of compute nodes increased to
three (3), the MAE rose substantially to 118.78,
indicating larger prediction errors. However, the
model still exhibited a reasonably high R-squared
value of 0.95, indicating that it could explain a sig-
nificant portion of the variance in runtime. With the
addition of the compute nodes, the model remains
informative despite its increased complexity.
Similarly, with four (4) compute nodes, the MAE
increased to 125.83, although it remained within
a reasonable range. The R-squared value of 0.98
highlights the model’s ability to explain most of the
variance in runtime, even with the higher number
of compute nodes.
The table illustrates the performance of the Gra-
dient Boosting Regressor across different numbers
of compute nodes. It demonstrates the trade-off
between model accuracy (as indicated by MAE)
and model explanatory power (as indicated by R-

Fig. 1: Compute Nodes -2
Fig. 2: Compute Nodes -3
squared) as the computational environment becomes
more complex. These findings offer valuable insights
for optimizing computational tasks in a parallel
computing environment.
1) Run Time Prediction: We generated synthetic
data and applied a Gradient Boosting Regressor
(GBR) model to predict runtime based on the
number of compute nodes, bandwidth, and whether
we are conducting Model Distributed Inferencing
(MDI) or Data Distributed Inferencing (DDI). In
the figures, the blue line represents the original data,
while the red line represents the predicted values.
In the plot for 2 compute nodes, we observed
that the model initially exhibited oscillations when
predicting runtime for bandwidths up to 2, but it
eventually stabilized and closely followed the orig-
inal data with minimal deviation from the plotted
line.
With 3 compute nodes, the model demonstrated
a high degree of predictability, closely tracking the
original data. However, it’s noteworthy that the
model predicted nearly constant values for band-
widths up to 2.5.
Fig. 3: Compute Nodes- 4
6
For 4 compute nodes, the model provided a
reasonably accurate prediction of the new data.
Notably, some noise was observed in the predictions,
particularly in the bandwidth range of 0 to 2 MPS.
These findings highlight the model’s performance
and its ability to predict runtime under varying
conditions. The observed oscillations and deviations
in certain scenarios warrant further investigation to
enhance the model’s accuracy and robustness.”
C. Performance Comparison with Previous Models
We compare the performance of the Gradient
Boosting Regressor model with the results obtained
from our previous models [11].
D. Discussion of Results
We discuss the implications and significance of
the predictive modeling results, highlighting any
insights gained from the analysis. for Research
VI. Future Work
In the contemporary landscape of data-intensive
edge computing, the effective orchestration of Data
Distributed Inferencing (DDI) tasks remains a sub-
stantial challenge. This complex task necessitates
real-time adaptability to the dynamic variations in
network conditions and available compute resources.
The present study represents a pioneering effort to
provide a robust solution to these challenges, with
Gradient Boosting Regression (GBR) as the linchpin
of our predictive modeling methodology.
Looking forward, we anticipate noteworthy ad-
vancements in the field of DDI optimization. Our
vision encompasses a future where the core aim
of estimating inferencing time, factoring in critical
variables such as bandwidth, compute device types,
and the quantity of compute nodes, transitions
from a theoretical concept to an essential practical
tool for facilitating dynamic task allocation and
optimization within DDI environments.
Our model, operating within the framework of
online learning, ushers in a new era. It continually
updates itself in real time as incoming data streams
provide fresh insights. This agile adaptation enables
the model to rapidly respond to the constantly
evolving conditions inherent to edge computing,
consistently providing precise predictions of infer-
encing times. This transformative aspect positions
our research as an invaluable asset in the repertoire
of DDI orchestration.
With a forward-looking perspective, the ramifica-
tions of our research extend across a multitude of
domains. We envision a substantial enhancement in
 7

the efficiency and performance of DDI systems, de-

livering tangible implications for practical applica-
tions. The profound impact of our work is poised to
resonate through real-world contexts, spanning from
the Internet of Things (IoT) and edge computing to
the sphere of distributed machine learning.

References
[1] J. Chen and X. Ran, “Deep Learning with Edge
Computing: A Review,” Proceedings of the IEEE, vol.
107, no. 8, pp. 1655–1674, Aug 2019. [Online]. Available:
https://doi.org/10.1109/jproc.2019.2921977
[2] C. Gregg, M. Boyer, K. Hazelwood, and
K. Skadron, “Dynamic Heterogeneous Scheduling
Decisions Using Historical Runtime Data,” Workshop
on Applications for Multi-and Many-Core Processors
(A4MMC), pp. 1–12, 1 2011. [Online]. Available:
https://www.cs.virginia.edu/ skadron/Papers/
gregga 4mmc11.pdf
[3] Y. Kim, P. Mercati, A. More, E. Shriver, and T. Rosing,
“P4: Phase-based power/performance prediction of
heterogeneous systems via neural networks,” 2017
IEEE/ACM International Conference on Computer-
Aided Design (ICCAD), 11 2017. [Online]. Available:
https://doi.org/10.1109/iccad.2017.8203843
[4] Z. C. Lipton, “The mythos of model interpretability,”
ACM Queue, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 31–57, 6 2018. [Online].
Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/3236386.3241340
[5] J. H. Friedman, “Greedy function approximation: A
gradient boosting machine.” Annals of Statistics,
vol. 29, no. 5, 10 2001. [Online]. Available:
https://doi.org/10.1214/aos/1013203451
[6] J. Friedman, “Stochastic gradient boosting,”
Computational Statistics Data Analysis, vol. 38,
no. 4, pp. 367–378, 2 2002. [Online]. Available:
https://doi.org/10.1016/s0167-9473(01)00065-2
[7] T. Chen and C. Guestrin, “XG-
Boost,” arxiv, 8 2016. [Online]. Available:
https://doi.org/10.1145/2939672.2939785
[8] S. P. Baller, A. Jindal, M. Chadha, and
M. Gerndt, “DeepEdgeBench: Benchmarking deep
neural networks on edge devices,” arXiv (Cor-
nell University), 8 2021. [Online]. Available:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2108.09457.pdf
[9] T. Hastie, R. Tibshirani, and J. H. Friedman, The
elements of statistical learning, 1 2009. [Online].
Available: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-84858-7
[10] “Scikit-Learn Ensemble: GradientBoostingRegressor,”
https://scikit-learn.org/stable/modules/generated/
[11] C. Anderson, M. Dwyer, and K. S. Chan, “Optimizing
machine learning inference performance on iot devices:
trade-offs and insights from statistical learning,” SPIE
Proceedings, 2023.