skip to main content


Title: Randomized Algorithms Accelerated over CPU-GPU for Ultra-High Dimensional Similarity Search
We present FLASH (F ast L SH A lgorithm for S imilarity search accelerated with H PC), a similarity search system for ultra-high dimensional datasets on a single machine, that does not require similarity computations and is tailored for high-performance computing platforms. By leveraging a LSH style randomized indexing procedure and combining it with several principled techniques, such as reservoir sampling, recent advances in one-pass minwise hashing, and count based estimations, we reduce the computational and parallelization costs of similarity search, while retaining sound theoretical guarantees. We evaluate FLASH on several real, high-dimensional datasets from different domains, including text, malicious URL, click-through prediction, social networks, etc. Our experiments shed new light on the difficulties associated with datasets having several million dimensions. Current state-of-the-art implementations either fail on the presented scale or are orders of magnitude slower than FLASH. FLASH is capable of computing an approximate k-NN graph, from scratch, over the full webspam dataset (1.3 billion nonzeros) in less than 10 seconds. Computing a full k-NN graph in less than 10 seconds on the webspam dataset, using brute-force (n2D), will require at least 20 teraflops. We provide CPU and GPU implementations of FLASH for replicability of our results.  more » « less
Award ID(s):
1652131 1718478
NSF-PAR ID:
10065988
Author(s) / Creator(s):
; ; ;
Date Published:
Journal Name:
Proceedings of the 2018 International Conference on Management of Data
Page Range / eLocation ID:
889 to 903
Format(s):
Medium: X
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. Neural architecture search (NAS) is a promising technique to design efficient and high-performance deep neural networks (DNNs). As the performance requirements of ML applications grow continuously, the hardware accelerators start playing a central role in DNN design. This trend makes NAS even more complicated and time-consuming for most real applications. This paper proposes FLASH, a very fast NAS methodology that co-optimizes the DNN accuracy and performance on a real hardware platform. As the main theoretical contribution, we first propose the NN-Degree, an analytical metric to quantify the topological characteristics of DNNs with skip connections (e.g., DenseNets, ResNets, Wide-ResNets, and MobileNets). The newly proposed NN-Degree allows us to do training-free NAS within one second and build an accuracy predictor by training as few as 25 samples out of a vast search space with more than 63 billion configurations. Second, by performing inference on the target hardware, we fine-tune and validate our analytical models to estimate the latency, area, and energy consumption of various DNN architectures while executing standard ML datasets. Third, we construct a hierarchical algorithm based on simplicial homology global optimization (SHGO) to optimize the model-architecture co-design process, while considering the area, latency, and energy consumption of the target hardware. We demonstrate that, compared to the state-of-the-art NAS approaches, our proposed hierarchical SHGO-based algorithm enables more than four orders of magnitude speedup (specifically, the execution time of the proposed algorithm is about 0.1 seconds). Finally, our experimental evaluations show that FLASH is easily transferable to different hardware architectures, thus enabling us to do NAS on a Raspberry Pi-3B processor in less than 3 seconds. 
    more » « less
  2. Processing large amounts of data, especially in learning algorithms, poses a challenge for current embedded computing systems. Hyperdimensional (HD) computing (HDC) is a brain-inspired computing paradigm that works with high-dimensional vectors called hypervectors . HDC replaces several complex learning computations with bitwise and simpler arithmetic operations at the expense of an increased amount of data due to mapping the data into high-dimensional space. These hypervectors, more often than not, cannot be stored in memory, resulting in long data transfers from storage. In this article, we propose Store-n-Learn, an in-storage computing solution that performs HDC classification and clustering by implementing encoding, training, retraining, and inference across the flash hierarchy. To hide the latency of training and enable efficient computation, we introduce the concept of batching in HDC. We also present on-chip acceleration for HDC encoding in flash planes. This enables us to exploit the high parallelism provided by the flash hierarchy and encode multiple data points in parallel in both batched and non-batched fashion. Store-n-Learn also implements a single top-level FPGA accelerator with novel implementations for HDC classification training, retraining, inference, and clustering on the encoded data. Our evaluation over 10 popular datasets shows that Store-n-Learn is on average 222× (543×) faster than CPU and 10.6× (7.3×) faster than the state-of-the-art in-storage computing solution, INSIDER for HDC classification (clustering). 
    more » « less
  3. Access libraries such as ROOT[1] and HDF5[2] allow users to interact with datasets using high level abstractions, like coordinate systems and associated slicing operations. Unfortunately, the implementations of access libraries are based on outdated assumptions about storage systems interfaces and are generally unable to fully benefit from modern fast storage devices. For example, access libraries often implement buffering and data layout that assume that large, single-threaded sequential access patterns are causing less overall latency than small parallel random access: while this is true for spinning media, it is not true for flash media. The situation is getting worse with rapidly evolving storage devices such as non-volatile memory and ever larger datasets. This project explores distributed dataset mapping infrastructures that can integrate and scale out existing access libraries using Ceph’s extensible object model, avoiding re-implementation or even modifications of these access libraries as much as possible. These programmable storage extensions coupled with our distributed dataset mapping techniques enable: 1) access library operations to be offloaded to storage system servers, 2) the independent evolution of access libraries and storage systems and 3) fully leveraging of the existing load balancing, elasticity, and failure management of distributed storage systems like Ceph. They also create more opportunities to conduct storage server-local optimizations specific to storage servers. For example, storage servers might include local key/value stores combined with chunk stores that require different optimizations than a local file system. As storage servers evolve to support new storage devices like non-volatile memory, these server-local optimizations can be implemented while minimizing disruptions to applications. We will report progress on the means by which distributed dataset mapping can be abstracted over particular access libraries, including access libraries for ROOT data, and how we address some of the challenges revolving around data partitioning and composability of access operations. 
    more » « less
  4. Obeid, Iyad Selesnick (Ed.)
    Electroencephalography (EEG) is a popular clinical monitoring tool used for diagnosing brain-related disorders such as epilepsy [1]. As monitoring EEGs in a critical-care setting is an expensive and tedious task, there is a great interest in developing real-time EEG monitoring tools to improve patient care quality and efficiency [2]. However, clinicians require automatic seizure detection tools that provide decisions with at least 75% sensitivity and less than 1 false alarm (FA) per 24 hours [3]. Some commercial tools recently claim to reach such performance levels, including the Olympic Brainz Monitor [4] and Persyst 14 [5]. In this abstract, we describe our efforts to transform a high-performance offline seizure detection system [3] into a low latency real-time or online seizure detection system. An overview of the system is shown in Figure 1. The main difference between an online versus offline system is that an online system should always be causal and has minimum latency which is often defined by domain experts. The offline system, shown in Figure 2, uses two phases of deep learning models with postprocessing [3]. The channel-based long short term memory (LSTM) model (Phase 1 or P1) processes linear frequency cepstral coefficients (LFCC) [6] features from each EEG channel separately. We use the hypotheses generated by the P1 model and create additional features that carry information about the detected events and their confidence. The P2 model uses these additional features and the LFCC features to learn the temporal and spatial aspects of the EEG signals using a hybrid convolutional neural network (CNN) and LSTM model. Finally, Phase 3 aggregates the results from both P1 and P2 before applying a final postprocessing step. The online system implements Phase 1 by taking advantage of the Linux piping mechanism, multithreading techniques, and multi-core processors. To convert Phase 1 into an online system, we divide the system into five major modules: signal preprocessor, feature extractor, event decoder, postprocessor, and visualizer. The system reads 0.1-second frames from each EEG channel and sends them to the feature extractor and the visualizer. The feature extractor generates LFCC features in real time from the streaming EEG signal. Next, the system computes seizure and background probabilities using a channel-based LSTM model and applies a postprocessor to aggregate the detected events across channels. The system then displays the EEG signal and the decisions simultaneously using a visualization module. The online system uses C++, Python, TensorFlow, and PyQtGraph in its implementation. The online system accepts streamed EEG data sampled at 250 Hz as input. The system begins processing the EEG signal by applying a TCP montage [8]. Depending on the type of the montage, the EEG signal can have either 22 or 20 channels. To enable the online operation, we send 0.1-second (25 samples) length frames from each channel of the streamed EEG signal to the feature extractor and the visualizer. Feature extraction is performed sequentially on each channel. The signal preprocessor writes the sample frames into two streams to facilitate these modules. In the first stream, the feature extractor receives the signals using stdin. In parallel, as a second stream, the visualizer shares a user-defined file with the signal preprocessor. This user-defined file holds raw signal information as a buffer for the visualizer. The signal preprocessor writes into the file while the visualizer reads from it. Reading and writing into the same file poses a challenge. The visualizer can start reading while the signal preprocessor is writing into it. To resolve this issue, we utilize a file locking mechanism in the signal preprocessor and visualizer. Each of the processes temporarily locks the file, performs its operation, releases the lock, and tries to obtain the lock after a waiting period. The file locking mechanism ensures that only one process can access the file by prohibiting other processes from reading or writing while one process is modifying the file [9]. The feature extractor uses circular buffers to save 0.3 seconds or 75 samples from each channel for extracting 0.2-second or 50-sample long center-aligned windows. The module generates 8 absolute LFCC features where the zeroth cepstral coefficient is replaced by a temporal domain energy term. For extracting the rest of the features, three pipelines are used. The differential energy feature is calculated in a 0.9-second absolute feature window with a frame size of 0.1 seconds. The difference between the maximum and minimum temporal energy terms is calculated in this range. Then, the first derivative or the delta features are calculated using another 0.9-second window. Finally, the second derivative or delta-delta features are calculated using a 0.3-second window [6]. The differential energy for the delta-delta features is not included. In total, we extract 26 features from the raw sample windows which add 1.1 seconds of delay to the system. We used the Temple University Hospital Seizure Database (TUSZ) v1.2.1 for developing the online system [10]. The statistics for this dataset are shown in Table 1. A channel-based LSTM model was trained using the features derived from the train set using the online feature extractor module. A window-based normalization technique was applied to those features. In the offline model, we scale features by normalizing using the maximum absolute value of a channel [11] before applying a sliding window approach. Since the online system has access to a limited amount of data, we normalize based on the observed window. The model uses the feature vectors with a frame size of 1 second and a window size of 7 seconds. We evaluated the model using the offline P1 postprocessor to determine the efficacy of the delayed features and the window-based normalization technique. As shown by the results of experiments 1 and 4 in Table 2, these changes give us a comparable performance to the offline model. The online event decoder module utilizes this trained model for computing probabilities for the seizure and background classes. These posteriors are then postprocessed to remove spurious detections. The online postprocessor receives and saves 8 seconds of class posteriors in a buffer for further processing. It applies multiple heuristic filters (e.g., probability threshold) to make an overall decision by combining events across the channels. These filters evaluate the average confidence, the duration of a seizure, and the channels where the seizures were observed. The postprocessor delivers the label and confidence to the visualizer. The visualizer starts to display the signal as soon as it gets access to the signal file, as shown in Figure 1 using the “Signal File” and “Visualizer” blocks. Once the visualizer receives the label and confidence for the latest epoch from the postprocessor, it overlays the decision and color codes that epoch. The visualizer uses red for seizure with the label SEIZ and green for the background class with the label BCKG. Once the streaming finishes, the system saves three files: a signal file in which the sample frames are saved in the order they were streamed, a time segmented event (TSE) file with the overall decisions and confidences, and a hypotheses (HYP) file that saves the label and confidence for each epoch. The user can plot the signal and decisions using the signal and HYP files with only the visualizer by enabling appropriate options. For comparing the performance of different stages of development, we used the test set of TUSZ v1.2.1 database. It contains 1015 EEG records of varying duration. The any-overlap performance [12] of the overall system shown in Figure 2 is 40.29% sensitivity with 5.77 FAs per 24 hours. For comparison, the previous state-of-the-art model developed on this database performed at 30.71% sensitivity with 6.77 FAs per 24 hours [3]. The individual performances of the deep learning phases are as follows: Phase 1’s (P1) performance is 39.46% sensitivity and 11.62 FAs per 24 hours, and Phase 2 detects seizures with 41.16% sensitivity and 11.69 FAs per 24 hours. We trained an LSTM model with the delayed features and the window-based normalization technique for developing the online system. Using the offline decoder and postprocessor, the model performed at 36.23% sensitivity with 9.52 FAs per 24 hours. The trained model was then evaluated with the online modules. The current performance of the overall online system is 45.80% sensitivity with 28.14 FAs per 24 hours. Table 2 summarizes the performances of these systems. The performance of the online system deviates from the offline P1 model because the online postprocessor fails to combine the events as the seizure probability fluctuates during an event. The modules in the online system add a total of 11.1 seconds of delay for processing each second of the data, as shown in Figure 3. In practice, we also count the time for loading the model and starting the visualizer block. When we consider these facts, the system consumes 15 seconds to display the first hypothesis. The system detects seizure onsets with an average latency of 15 seconds. Implementing an automatic seizure detection model in real time is not trivial. We used a variety of techniques such as the file locking mechanism, multithreading, circular buffers, real-time event decoding, and signal-decision plotting to realize the system. A video demonstrating the system is available at: https://www.isip.piconepress.com/projects/nsf_pfi_tt/resources/videos/realtime_eeg_analysis/v2.5.1/video_2.5.1.mp4. The final conference submission will include a more detailed analysis of the online performance of each module. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Research reported in this publication was most recently supported by the National Science Foundation Partnership for Innovation award number IIP-1827565 and the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Universal Research Enhancement Program (PA CURE). Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official views of any of these organizations. REFERENCES [1] A. Craik, Y. He, and J. L. Contreras-Vidal, “Deep learning for electroencephalogram (EEG) classification tasks: a review,” J. Neural Eng., vol. 16, no. 3, p. 031001, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1088/1741-2552/ab0ab5. [2] A. C. Bridi, T. Q. Louro, and R. C. L. Da Silva, “Clinical Alarms in intensive care: implications of alarm fatigue for the safety of patients,” Rev. Lat. Am. Enfermagem, vol. 22, no. 6, p. 1034, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1590/0104-1169.3488.2513. [3] M. Golmohammadi, V. Shah, I. Obeid, and J. Picone, “Deep Learning Approaches for Automatic Seizure Detection from Scalp Electroencephalograms,” in Signal Processing in Medicine and Biology: Emerging Trends in Research and Applications, 1st ed., I. Obeid, I. Selesnick, and J. Picone, Eds. New York, New York, USA: Springer, 2020, pp. 233–274. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-36844-9_8. [4] “CFM Olympic Brainz Monitor.” [Online]. Available: https://newborncare.natus.com/products-services/newborn-care-products/newborn-brain-injury/cfm-olympic-brainz-monitor. [Accessed: 17-Jul-2020]. [5] M. L. Scheuer, S. B. Wilson, A. Antony, G. Ghearing, A. Urban, and A. I. Bagic, “Seizure Detection: Interreader Agreement and Detection Algorithm Assessments Using a Large Dataset,” J. Clin. Neurophysiol., 2020. https://doi.org/10.1097/WNP.0000000000000709. [6] A. Harati, M. Golmohammadi, S. Lopez, I. Obeid, and J. Picone, “Improved EEG Event Classification Using Differential Energy,” in Proceedings of the IEEE Signal Processing in Medicine and Biology Symposium, 2015, pp. 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1109/SPMB.2015.7405421. [7] V. Shah, C. Campbell, I. Obeid, and J. Picone, “Improved Spatio-Temporal Modeling in Automated Seizure Detection using Channel-Dependent Posteriors,” Neurocomputing, 2021. [8] W. Tatum, A. Husain, S. Benbadis, and P. Kaplan, Handbook of EEG Interpretation. New York City, New York, USA: Demos Medical Publishing, 2007. [9] D. P. Bovet and C. Marco, Understanding the Linux Kernel, 3rd ed. O’Reilly Media, Inc., 2005. https://www.oreilly.com/library/view/understanding-the-linux/0596005652/. [10] V. Shah et al., “The Temple University Hospital Seizure Detection Corpus,” Front. Neuroinform., vol. 12, pp. 1–6, 2018. https://doi.org/10.3389/fninf.2018.00083. [11] F. Pedregosa et al., “Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in Python,” J. Mach. Learn. Res., vol. 12, pp. 2825–2830, 2011. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/1953048.2078195. [12] J. Gotman, D. Flanagan, J. Zhang, and B. Rosenblatt, “Automatic seizure detection in the newborn: Methods and initial evaluation,” Electroencephalogr. Clin. Neurophysiol., vol. 103, no. 3, pp. 356–362, 1997. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0013-4694(97)00003-9. 
    more » « less
  5. AutoML has demonstrated remarkable success in finding an effective neural architecture for a given machine learning task defined by a specific dataset and an evaluation metric. However, most present AutoML techniques consider each task independently from scratch, which requires exploring many architectures, leading to high computational costs. We proposed AutoTransfer, an AutoML solution that improves search efficiency by transferring the prior architectural design knowledge to the novel task of interest. Our key innovation includes a task-model bank that captures the model performance over a diverse set of GNN architectures and tasks, and a computationally efficient task embedding that can accurately measure the similarity among different tasks. Based on the task-model bank and the task embeddings, our method estimates the design priors of desirable models of the novel task, by aggregating a similarity-weighted sum of the top-K design distributions on tasks that are similar to the task of interest. The computed design priors can be used with any AutoML search algorithm. We evaluated AutoTransfer on six datasets in the graph machine learning domain. Experiments demonstrate that (i) our proposed task embedding can be computed efficiently, and that tasks with similar embeddings have similar best-performing architectures; (ii) AutoTransfer significantly improves search efficiency with the transferred design priors, reducing the number of explored architectures by an order of magnitude. Finally, we released GNN-BANK-101, a large-scale dataset of detailed GNN training information of 120,000 task-model combinations to facilitate and inspire future research. 
    more » « less