From candaten@s1.elec.uq.oz.au Fri Jul 1 14:53:27 EDT 1994 Article: 17515 of comp.ai.neural-nets Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.ai.neural-nets:17515 Path: honeydew.srv.cs.cmu.edu!nntp.club.cc.cmu.edu!newsfeed.pitt.edu!gatech!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!library.ucla.edu!agate!msuinfo!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!bunyip.cc.uq.oz.au!s1.elec.uq.oz.au!candaten From: candaten@s1.elec.uq.oz.au (Adrian Candaten) Newsgroups: comp.ai.neural-nets Subject: ANN Simulator Survey - Results Date: 28 Jun 94 06:28:53 GMT Organization: University of Queensland Lines: 132 Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: s1.elec.uq.oz.au X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.0 #2 (NOV) ANN Simulator Survey - Results ------------------------------------------- Number of Participants so far : 60 Distribution : wide distribution, no local trends Americas : 24 (40.0%) > US : 21 (35.0%) Europe : 29 (48.3%) > Germany : 14 (23.3%) Australasia & Asia : 7 (11.7%) Interest in ANNs : wide Most Common : image and sound classification and recognition - approx. 27 %. Others : control, prediction, learning structures, game theory, modelling industrial processes, compression algorithm. Approach of simulating ANN : using general-purpose language - 36 (60.0%) using ANN simulator - 13 (21.7%) using both (their vote is split) 11 (18.3%) Reasons stated for using a language : flexibility, speed, total control of simulation, simpler, doing new research, helps in understanding the theory, tight budget and resources, simulators don't see networks the same way as I do, languages are more available and portable, most simulators require C code anyway. Reasons stated for using a simulator : don't waste time (very popular), doing simple stuff, why reinvent the wheel, simulator code is better and has less bugs than mine, can't program. Most popular languages mentioned: C - 29/47 (61.2%) C++ - 16/47 (34.0%) Others - 12/47 (25.6%) - pascal(3), fortran(2), objective-C, ML (functional language), FAST, LISP, C*,.. n.b. people sometimes quota using more than one language. C was often used along with C++. Most popular reasons given for using C : I know it, it is everywhere and cheap, C is fast, but hard to use, sort of industry standard, good for creating libraries. Most popular reason given for using C++ : I know C and OOPLs suits ANN simulations ie. the nature of the program reflects the nature of the problem. Most popular simulators mentioned: SNNS - 12/24 (50.0%) NeuralWorks - 3/24 (12.5%) xerion - 3/24 (12.5%) NeuDesk - 3/24 (12.5%) BrainMaker - 2/24 ( 8.3%) PlaNet - 2/24 ( 8.3%) Others - 10/24 (41.7%) - NeuronWindows, Asprin/MIGRAINE, DynaMind, MacBrain, Nets, Neuralyst, Neuroforecaster, NeuronShell, SESAME. - Mathematica, MatLab NN Toolbox, Maple - a few people have written their own language. n.b. people often use more than one simulator. Because of their inflexibility, I presume. Most popular simulation platform : X -windows - 39/60 (65%) MSDOS on PC - 17/60 (28%) UNIX w/o X - 8/60 (13%) Windows (3.1 or NT)PC - 6/60 (10%) OpenWindows - 3/60 ( 5%) Mac - 2/60 ( 3%) n.b. 21% of researchers use more than one platforms. Backgrounds : w/- Engineering (mostly electrical) 27/60 (45%) w/- Computer Science (CS) 28/60 (47%) w/o Engin. or CS 8/60 (13%) n.b. persons may have both -> percent don't add to 100. VISIBLE TRENDS and POINTS OF INTEREST ------------------------------------- Between approach and location : 85% (18/24) of Americans(North and South) tend to write their own simulators, while only 8% (2/24) strictly use a simulator. This differs from Europe, where 50%(14/28) write their own and 21%(6/28) strictly use a simulator. In Germany, the distribution is very even with 36%(5/14) writing their own, 28%(4/14) using a simulator and 36%(5/14) using both. Between simulators and location : SNNS is twice as popular in Germany (67% or 6/9) as it is outside Europe (33% or 3/9). (p.s. I know it is a small sample size). Between languages and platform : none Between approach and interest : It seems that sometimes simulators are used to quickly determine the viability of using a neural network in a physical system to avoid time-consuming code-writing. Between approach and background : If a person has an engineering background, then they will probably write their own simulation (probability of 70.0% or 19/27). In contrast, a person with computer science and no engineering background is 61% (16/26) probable of writing their own. A person with neither of these backgrounds is likely to use a simulator (3/7) or both (2/7). ------------------------------------- NOTE : Sorry for the delay of these results, especially to those of you that were very prompt with your replies. I've been getting carried away with my own blah blah research. As far as my own interest, these results provide enough of an accurate picture. For a clearer picture, more participants would be required. I WILL send an update, IFF I receive a sufficient number of replies. If you disagree, agree or just are interested with the results, have your say by filling in the survey forms provided in the news group and e-mailing me (unless of course, you've done so already). Thanks Adrian Candaten (candaten@elec.uq.oz.au) (update on coffee : number of persons collected - 1)