More Like this

1. Noria: dynamic, partially-stateful data-flow for high-performance web applications

   Gjengset, Jon ; Schwarzkopf, Malte ; Behrens, Jonathan ; Timbo Araujo, Lara ; Ek, Martin ; Kohler, Eddie ; Kaashoek, M. Frans ; Morris, Robert ( October 2018 , 13th USENIX Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Implementation (OSDI 18))

   We introduce partially-stateful data-flow, a new streaming data-flow model that supports eviction and reconstruction of data-flow state on demand. By avoiding state explosion and supporting live changes to the data-flow graph, this model makes data-flow viable for building long-lived, low-latency applications, such as web applications. Our implementation, Noria, simplifies the back-end infrastructure for read-heavy web applications while improving their performance. A Noria application supplies a relational schema and a set of parameterized queries, which Noria compiles into a data-flow program that pre-computes results for reads and incrementally applies writes. Noria makes it easy to write high-performance applications without manual performance tuning or complex-to-maintain caching layers. Partial statefulness helps Noria limit its in-memory state without prior data-flow systems' restriction to windowed state, and helps Noria adapt its data-flow to schema and query changes while on-line. Unlike prior data-flow systems, Noria also shares state and computation across related queries, eliminating duplicate work. On a real web application's queries, our prototype scales to 5x higher load than a hand-optimized MySQL baseline. Noria also outperforms a typical MySQL/memcached stack and the materialized views of a commercial database. It scales to tens of millions of reads and millions of writes per second over multiple servers, outperforming a state-of-the-art streaming data-flow system. 

   more » « less
2. A Deep Learning-Based Real-time Seizure Detection System

   https://doi.org/10.1109/SPMB50085.2020.9353623  

   Shawki, N. ; Elseify, T. ; Cap, T. ; Shah, V. ; Obeid, I. ; Picone, J. ( December 2020 , Proceedings of the IEEE Signal Processing in Medicine and Biology Symposium (SPMB))

   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
3. Characterizing, Modeling, and Benchmarking RocksDB Key-Value Workloads at Facebook

   Zhichao Cao, Siying Dong ( February 2020 , 18th USENIX Conference on File and Storage Technologies (FAST ’20))

   Persistent key-value stores are widely used as building blocks in today’s IT infrastructure for managing and storing large amounts of data. However, studies of characterizing real-world workloads for key-value stores are limited due tothe lack of tracing/analyzing tools and the difficulty of collecting traces in operational environments. In this paper, we first present a detailed characterization of workloads from three typical RocksDB production use cases at Facebook: UDB (a MySQL storage layer for social graph data), ZippyDB (a distributed key-value store), and UP2X (a distributed key-value store for AI/ML services). These characterizations reveal several interesting findings: first, that the distribution of key and value sizes are highly related to the use cases/applications; second, that the accesses to key-value pairs have a good locality and follow certain special patterns; and third, that the collected performance metrics show a strong diurnal pattern in the UDB, but not the other two. We further discover that although the widely used key-value benchmark YCSB provides various workload configurations and key-value pair access distribution models, the YCSB triggered workloads for underlying storage systems are still not close enough to the workloads we collected due to ignorance of key-space localities. To address this issue, we propose a key-range based modeling and develop a benchmark that can better emulate the workloads of real-world key-value stores. This benchmark can synthetically generate more precise key-value queries that represent the reads and writes of key-value stores to the underlying storage system. 

   more » « less
4. NORIA: A NEW TAKE ON FAST WEB APPLICATION BACKENDS

   Gjengset, J Schwarzkopf ( April 2019 , ;login:)

   Noria, first presented at OSDI 2018, is a new web application backend that delivers the same fast reads as an in-memory cache in front of the database, but without the application having to manage the cache. Even better, Noria still accepts SQL queries and allows changes to the queries without extra effort, just like a database. Noria performs well: it serves up to 14M requests per second on a single server, and supports a 5x higher load than carefully hand-tuned queries issued to MySQL. Writing web applications that tolerate high load is difficult. The reason is that the backend storage system that the application relies on—typically a relational database, like MySQL— can easily become a serious bottleneck with many clients. Each page view typically involves 10 or more database queries, which each take up CPU time on the database servers to evaluate. To avoid such slow database interactions and to reduce load on the database, applications often introduce caches (like memcached or Redis) that store already-computed query results for fast common case access. These caches, however, impose significant application complexity, because the application must query, invalidate, and maintain them. Surely there has to be a better way. 

   more » « less
5. Time Lattice: A Data Structure for the Interactive Visual Analysis of Large Time Series

   https://doi.org/10.1111/cgf.13398  

   Miranda, Fabio ; Lage, Marcos ; Doraiswamy, Harish ; Mydlarz, Charlie ; Salamon, Justin ; Lockerman, Yitzchak ; Freire, Juliana ; Silva, Claudio T. ( January 2018 , Computer graphics forum)

   Advances in technology coupled with the availability of low-cost sensors have resulted in the continuous generation of large time series from several sources. In order to visually explore and compare these time series at different scales, analysts need to execute online analytical processing (OLAP) queries that include constraints and group-by's at multiple temporal hierarchies. Effective visual analysis requires these queries to be interactive. However, while existing OLAP cube-based structures can support interactive query rates, the exponential memory requirement to materialize the data cube is often unsuitable for large data sets. Moreover, none of the recent space-efficient cube data structures allow for updates. Thus, the cube must be re-computed whenever there is new data, making them impractical in a streaming scenario. We propose Time Lattice, a memory-efficient data structure that makes use of the implicit temporal hierarchy to enable interactive OLAP queries over large time series. Time Lattice is a subset of a fully materialized cube and is designed to handle fast updates and streaming data. We perform an experimental evaluation which shows that the space efficiency of the data structure does not hamper its performance when compared to the state of the art. In collaboration with signal processing and acoustics research scientists, we use the Time Lattice data structure to design the Noise Profiler, a web-based visualization framework that supports the analysis of noise from cities. We demonstrate the utility of Noise Profiler through a set of case studies. 

   more » « less