Sparsification and Separation of Deep Learning Layers for Constrained Resource Inference on Wearables

Deep learning has revolutionized the way sensor data are analyzed and interpreted. The accuracy gains these approaches o↵er make them attractive for the next generation of mobile, wearable and embedded sensory applications. However, state-of-the-art deep learning algorithms typically require a significant amount of device and processor resources, even just for the inference stages that are used to discriminate high-level classes from low-level data. The limited availability of memory, computation, and energy on mobile and embedded platforms thus pose a significant challenge to the adoption of these powerful learning techniques. In this paper, we propose SparseSep, a new approach that leverages the sparsification of fully connected layers and separation of convolutional kernels to reduce the resource requirements of popular deep learning algorithms. As a result, SparseSep allows large-scale DNNs and CNNs to run eciently on mobile and embedded hardware with only minimal impact on inference accuracy. We experiment using SparseSep across a variety of common processors such as the Qualcomm Snapdragon 400, ARM Cortex M0 and M3, and Nvidia Tegra K1, and show that it allows inference for various deep models to execute more eciently; for example, on average requiring 11.3 times less memory and running 13.3 times faster on these representative platforms

The concept of solidarity: emerging from the theoretical shadows?

The concept of solidarity has been relatively neglected by social scientists since Durkheim's pioneering work in the late 19th century. The discipline of politics has been guilty of overlooking this 'subjective' element of community life, but recent works by Stjernø and Brunkhorst reflect a growing awareness of the theoretical significance of the concept. Whereas early liberal attempts to theorise solidarity took the nation state to be the appropriate community for its realisation, the emergence of globalisation raises the possibility of human solidarity developing in the global community. Traditional forms of solidarity have been dissipated by the social changes accompanying globalisation, but they were often locked into the defence of particular interests. New forms may be emerging to rekindle the broader vision of human solidarity. Recent work by writers such as Habermas, Honneth, Rorty and Touraine focuses on widening and deepening democratic participation and/or the articulation of our ethical obligations in various ways. It is argued here that these perspectives need to be supplemented by a radical humanist approach grounded in a normative theory of human self-realisation

The ethical challenge of Touraine's 'living together'

In Can We Live Together? Alain Touraine combines a consummate analysis of crucial social tensions in contemporary societies with a strong normative appeal for a new emancipatory 'Subject' capable of overcoming the twin threats of atomisation or authoritarianism. He calls for a move from 'politics to ethics' and then from ethics back to politics to enable the new Subject to make a reality out of the goals of democracy and solidarity. However, he has little to say about the nature of such an ethics. This article argues that this lacuna could usefully be filled by adopting a form of radical humanism found in the work of Erich Fromm. It defies convention in the social sciences by operating from an explicit view of the 'is' and the 'ought' of common human nature, specifying reason, love and productive work as the qualities to be realised if we are to move closer to human solidarity. Although there remain significant philosophical and political differences between the two positions, particularly on the role to be played by 'the nation', their juxtaposition opens new lines of inquiry in the field of cosmopolitan ethics

Fetishism and the social value of objects.

The idea of the fetish has a particular presence in the writings of both Marx and Freud. It implies for these two theorists of the social, a particular form of relation between human beings and objects. In the work of both the idea of the fetish involves attributing properties to objects that they do not 'really' have and that should correctly be recognised as human. While Marx's account of fetishism addresses the exchange-value of commodities at the level of the economic relations of production, it fails to deal in any detail with the use-value or consumption of commodities. In contrast Freud's concept of the fetish as a desired substitute for a suitable sex object explores how objects are desired and consumed. Drawing on both Marx and Freud, Baudrillard breaks with their analyses of fetishism as demonstrating a human relation with unreal objects. He explores the creation of value in objects through the social exchange of sign values, showing how objects are fetishised in ostentation. This paper argues that while Baudrillard breaks with the realism characteristic of Marx's and Freud's analyses of fetishism, he does not go far enough in describing the social and discursive practices in which objects are used and sometimes transformed into fetishes. It is proposed that the fetishisation of objects involves an overdetermination of their social value through a discursive negotiation of the capacities of objects that stimulates fantasy and desire for them

Dialectics and difference: against Harvey's dialectical post-Marxism

David Harvey`s recent book, Justice, nature and the geography of difference (JNGD), engages with a central philosophical debate that continues to dominate human geography: the tension between the radical Marxist project of recent decades and the apparently disempowering relativism and `play of difference' of postmodern thought. In this book, Harvey continues to argue for a revised `post-Marxist' approach in human geography which remains based on Hegelian-Marxian principles of dialectical thought. This article develops a critique of that stance, drawing on the work of Jacques Derrida, Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari. I argue that dialectical thinking, as well as Harvey's version of `post-Marxism', has been undermined by the wide-ranging `post-' critique. I suggest that Harvey has failed to appreciate the full force of this critique and the implications it has for `post-Marxist' ontology and epistemology. I argue that `post-Marxism', along with much contemporary human geography, is constrained by an inflexible ontology which excessively prioritizes space in the theory produced, and which implements inflexible concepts. Instead, using the insights of several `post-' writers, I contend there is a need to develop an ontology of `context' leading to the production of `contextual theories'. Such theories utilize flexible concepts in a multilayered understanding of ontology and epistemology. I compare how an approach which produces a `contextual theory' might lead to more politically empowering theory than `post-Marxism' with reference to one of Harvey's case studies in JNGD

Kaposi's Sarcoma-Associated Herpesvirus K7 Induces Viral G Protein-Coupled Receptor Degradation and Reduces Its Tumorigenicity

The Kaposi's sarcoma-associated herpesvirus (KSHV) genome encodes a G protein-coupled receptor (vGPCR). vGPCR is a ligand-independent, constitutively active signaling molecule that promotes cell growth and proliferation; however, it is not clear how vGPCR is negatively regulated. We report here that the KSHV K7 small membrane protein interacts with vGPCR and induces its degradation, thereby dampening vGPCR signaling. K7 interaction with vGPCR is readily detected in transiently transfected human cells. Mutational analyses reveal that the K7 transmembrane domain is necessary and sufficient for this interaction. Biochemical and confocal microscopy studies indicate that K7 retains vGPCR in the endoplasmic reticulum (ER) and induces vGPCR proteasomeal degradation. Indeed, the knockdown of K7 by shRNA-mediated silencing increases vGPCR protein expression in BCBL-1 cells that are induced for KSHV lytic replication. Interestingly, K7 expression significantly reduces vGPCR tumorigenicity in nude mice. These findings define a viral factor that negatively regulates vGPCR protein expression and reveal a post-translational event that modulates GPCR-dependent transformation and tumorigenicity

The Concept of Transparency in International Relations: towards a critical approach

Transparency is an important concept in International Relations. The possibility of realizing transparency in practice operates as a central analytical axis defining distinct positions on core theoretical problems within the field, from the security dilemma to the function of international institutions and beyond. As a political practice the pursuit of transparent governance is a dominant feature of global politics, promoted by a wide range of actors across a vast range of issue areas, from nuclear proliferation to Internet governance to the politics of foreign aid. Yet, despite its importance, precisely what transparency means or how the concept is understood is frequently ill-defined by academics and policy-makers alike. As a result, the epistemological and ontological underpinnings of approaches to transparency in IR often sit in tension with their wider theoretical commitments. This article will examine the three primary understandings of transparency used in IR in order to unpack these commitments. It finds that while transparency is often explicitly conceptualized as a property of information, particularly within rationalist scholarship, this understanding rests upon an unarticulated set of sociological assumptions. This analysis suggests that conceptualizing ‘transparency-as-information’ without a wider sociology of knowledge production is highly problematic, potentially obscuring our ability to recognize transparent practices in global governance. Understanding transparency as dialogue, as a social practice rooted in shared cognitive capacities and epistemic frameworks, provides a firmer analytical ground from which to examine transparency in International Relations

Beyond the ontological turn: affirming the relative autonomy of politics

In this article, I critically evaluate a characteristic tendency that is found across the various traditions of poststructuralism, both narrowly and more broadly defined. This is an increasing propensity to be preoccupied with ontological questions and seemingly at the expense of either a refinement of political concepts or a concrete analysis of forms of power and domination. I consider the reasons for this development and stress how this characteristic feature of poststructuralism appears to follow from the very fact of ontological pluralism. What we see in contemporary continental thought is a proliferation of different traditions, and each side seeks to defend their position in ontological terms. Following this, I advance the idea of a relative autonomy between ontology and politics, where the former does not determine the latter in any direct or straightforward fashion. I argue that we need to stress this relative autonomy to open a little space between ontology and politics, space where we can return poststructuralism to a more concrete engagement with ‘the political’