Efficient and adaptive computer vision systems have been proposed to make computer vision tasks, such as image classification and object detection, optimized for embedded or mobile devices. These solutions, quite recent in their origin, focus on optimizing the model (a deep neural network, DNN) or the system by designing an adaptive system with approximation knobs. Despite several recent efforts, we show that existing solutions suffer from two major drawbacks. First , while mobile devices or systems-on-chips (SOCs) usually come with limited resources including battery power, most systems do not consider the energy consumption of the models during inference. Second , they do not consider the interplay between the three metrics of interest in their configurations, namely, latency, accuracy, and energy. In this work, we propose an efficient and adaptive video object detection system — Virtuoso , which is jointly optimized for accuracy, energy efficiency, and latency. Underlying Virtuoso is a multi-branch execution kernel that is capable of running at different operating points in the accuracy-energy-latency axes, and a lightweight runtime scheduler to select the best fit execution branch to satisfy the user requirement. We position this work as a first step in understanding the suitability of various object detection kernels on embedded boards in the accuracy-latency-energy axes, opening the door for further development in solutions customized to embedded systems and for benchmarking such solutions. Virtuoso is able to achieve up to 286 FPS on the NVIDIA Jetson AGX Xavier board, which is up to 45 times faster than the baseline EfficientDet D3 and 15 times faster than the baseline EfficientDet D0. In addition, we also observe up to 97.2% energy reduction using Virtuoso compared to the baseline YOLO (v3) — a widely used object detector designed for mobiles. To fairly compare with Virtuoso , we benchmark 15 state-of-the-art or widely used protocols, including Faster R-CNN (FRCNN) [NeurIPS’15], YOLO v3 [CVPR’16], SSD [ECCV’16], EfficientDet [CVPR’20], SELSA [ICCV’19], MEGA [CVPR’20], REPP [IROS’20], FastAdapt [EMDL’21], and our in-house adaptive variants of FRCNN+, YOLO+, SSD+, and EfficientDet+ (our variants have enhanced efficiency for mobiles). With this comprehensive benchmark, Virtuoso has shown superiority to all the above protocols, leading the accuracy frontier at every efficiency level on NVIDIA Jetson mobile GPUs. Specifically, Virtuoso has achieved an accuracy of 63.9%, which is more than 10% higher than some of the popular object detection models, FRCNN at 51.1%, and YOLO at 49.5%.
more »
« less
Panorama: a data system for unbounded vocabulary querying over video
Deep convolutional neural networks (CNNs) achieve state-of-the-art accuracy for many computer vision tasks. But using them for video monitoring applications incurs high computational cost and inference latency. Thus, recent works have studied how to improve system efficiency. But they largely focus on small "closed world" prediction vocabularies even though many applications in surveillance security, traffic analytics, etc. have an ever-growing set of target entities. We call this the "unbounded vocabulary" issue, and it is a key bottleneck for emerging video monitoring applications. We present the first data system for tacking this issue for video querying, Panorama. Our design philosophy is to build a unified and domain-agnostic system that lets application users generalize to unbounded vocabularies in an out-of-the-box manner without tedious manual re-training. To this end, we synthesize and innovate upon an array of techniques from the ML, vision, databases, and multimedia systems literature to devise a new system architecture. We also present techniques to ensure Panorama has high inference efficiency. Experiments with multiple real-world datasets show that Panorama can achieve between 2x to 20x higher efficiency than baseline approaches on in-vocabulary queries, while still yielding comparable accuracy and also generalizing well to unbounded vocabularies.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 1826967
- NSF-PAR ID:
- 10279994
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment
- Volume:
- 13
- Issue:
- 4
- ISSN:
- 2150-8097
- Page Range / eLocation ID:
- 477 to 491
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
more » « less
Vision Transformer (ViT) has demonstrated promising performance in various computer vision tasks, and recently attracted a lot of research attention. Many recent works have focused on proposing new architectures to improve ViT and deploying it into real-world applications. However, little effort has been made to analyze and understand ViT’s architecture design space and its implication of hardware-cost on different devices. In this work, by simply scaling ViT’s depth, width, input size, and other basic configurations, we show that a scaled vanilla ViT model without bells and whistles can achieve comparable or superior accuracy-efficiency trade-off than most of the latest ViT variants. Specifically, compared to DeiT-Tiny, our scaled model achieves a
\(\uparrow 1.9\% \) \(\uparrow 3.7\% \) can these scaling strategies be transferred across different real hardware devices ?”; and (2) “can these scaling strategies be transferred to different ViT variants and tasks ?”. For (1), our exploration, based on various devices with different resource budgets, indicates that the transferability effectiveness depends on the underlying device together with its corresponding deployment tool; for (2), we validate the effective transferability of the aforementioned scaling strategies obtained from a vanilla ViT model on top of an image classification task to the PiT model, a strong ViT variant targeting efficiency, as well as object detection and video classification tasks. In particular, when transferred to PiT, our scaling strategies lead to a boosted ImageNet top-1 accuracy of from\(74.6\% \) \(76.7\% \) \(\uparrow 2.1\% \) \(\uparrow 0.7\% \) -
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
-
Autonomous mobile robots (AMRs) have been widely utilized in industry to execute various on-board computer-vision applications including autonomous guidance, security patrol, object detection, and face recognition. Most of the applications executed by an AMR involve the analysis of camera images through trained machine learning models. Many research studies on machine learning focus either on performance without considering energy efficiency or on techniques such as pruning and compression to make the model more energy-efficient. However, most previous work do not study the root causes of energy inefficiency for the execution of those applications on AMRs. The computing stack on an AMR accounts for 33% of the total energy consumption and can thus highly impact the battery life of the robot. Because recharging an AMR may disrupt the application execution, it is important to efficiently utilize the available energy for maximized battery life. In this paper, we first analyze the breakdown of power dissipation for the execution of computer-vision applications on AMRs and discover three main root causes of energy inefficiency: uncoordinated access to sensor data, performance-oriented model inference execution, and uncoordinated execution of concurrent jobs. In order to fix these three inefficiencies, we propose E2M, an energy-efficient middleware software stack for autonomous mobile robots. First, E2M regulates the access of different processes to sensor data, e.g., camera frames, so that the amount of data actually captured by concurrently executing jobs can be minimized. Second, based on a predefined per-process performance metric (e.g., safety, accuracy) and desired target, E2M manipulates the process execution period to find the best energy-performance trade off. Third, E2M coordinates the execution of the concurrent processes to maximize the total contiguous sleep time of the computing hardware for maximized energy savings. We have implemented a prototype of E2M on a real-world AMR. Our experimental results show that, compared to several baselines, E2M leads to 24% energy savings for the computing platform, which translates into an extra 11.5% of battery time and 14 extra minutes of robot runtime, with a performance degradation lower than 7.9% for safety and 1.84% for accuracy.more » « less
-
Brain-inspired Hyperdimensional (HD) computing models cognition by exploiting properties of high dimensional statistics– high-dimensional vectors, instead of working with numeric values used in contemporary processors. A fundamental weakness of existing HD computing algorithms is that they require to use floating point models in order to provide acceptable accuracy on realistic classification problems. However, working with floating point values significantly increases the HD computation cost. To address this issue, we proposed QuantHD, a novel framework for quantization of HD computing model during training. QuantHD enables HD computing to work with a low-cost quantized model (binary or ternary model) while providing a similar accuracy as the floating point model. We accordingly propose an FPGA implementation which accelerates HD computing in both training and inference phases. We evaluate QuantHD accuracy and efficiency on various real-world applications, and observe that QuantHD can achieve on average 17.2% accuracy improvement as compared to the existing binarized HD computing algorithms which provide a similar computation cost. In terms of efficiency, QuantHD FPGA implementation can achieve on average 42.3× and 4.7× (34.1× and 4.1×) energy efficiency improvement and speedup during inference (training) as compared to the state-of-the-art HD computing algorithms.more » « less
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Journal Article:
- https://doi.org/10.14778/3372716.3372721
