skip to main content

Title: DLion: Decentralized Distributed Deep Learning in Micro-Clouds
Deep learning (DL) is a popular technique for building models from large quantities of data such as pictures, videos, messages generated from edges devices at rapid pace all over the world. It is often infeasible to migrate large quantities of data from the edges to centralized data center(s) over WANs for training due to privacy, cost, and performance reasons. At the same time, training large DL models on edge devices is infeasible due to their limited resources. An attractive alternative for DL training distributed data is to use micro-clouds---small-scale clouds deployed near edge devices in multiple locations. However, micro-clouds present the challenges of both computation and network resource heterogeneity as well as dynamism. In this paper, we introduce DLion, a new and generic decentralized distributed DL system designed to address the key challenges in micro-cloud environments, in order to reduce overall training time and improve model accuracy. We present three key techniques in DLion: (1) Weighted dynamic batching to maximize data parallelism for dealing with heterogeneous and dynamic compute capacity, (2) Per-link prioritized gradient exchange to reduce communication overhead for model updates based on available network capacity, and (3) Direct knowledge transfer to improve model accuracy by merging the best more » performing model parameters. We build a prototype of DLion on top of TensorFlow and show that DLion achieves up to 4.2X speedup in an Amazon GPU cluster, and up to 2X speed up and 26% higher model accuracy in a CPU cluster over four state-of-the-art distributed DL systems. « less
Authors:
;
Award ID(s):
1717834
Publication Date:
NSF-PAR ID:
10292672
Journal Name:
HPDC '21
Page Range or eLocation-ID:
227 to 238
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. Federated learning (FL) involves training a model over massive distributed devices, while keeping the training data localized and private. This form of collaborative learning exposes new tradeoffs among model convergence speed, model accuracy, balance across clients, and communication cost, with new challenges including: (1) straggler problem—where clients lag due to data or (computing and network) resource heterogeneity, and (2) communication bottleneck—where a large number of clients communicate their local updates to a central server and bottleneck the server. Many existing FL methods focus on optimizing along only one single dimension of the tradeoff space. Existing solutions use asynchronous model updatingmore »or tiering-based, synchronous mechanisms to tackle the straggler problem. However, asynchronous methods can easily create a communication bottleneck, while tiering may introduce biases that favor faster tiers with shorter response latencies. To address these issues, we present FedAT, a novel Federated learning system with Asynchronous Tiers under Non-i.i.d. training data. FedAT synergistically combines synchronous, intra-tier training and asynchronous, cross-tier training. By bridging the synchronous and asynchronous training through tiering, FedAT minimizes the straggler effect with improved convergence speed and test accuracy. FedAT uses a straggler-aware, weighted aggregation heuristic to steer and balance the training across clients for further accuracy improvement. FedAT compresses uplink and downlink communications using an efficient, polyline-encoding-based compression algorithm, which minimizes the communication cost. Results show that FedAT improves the prediction performance by up to 21.09% and reduces the communication cost by up to 8.5×, compared to state-of-the-art FL methods.« less
  2. Edge data centers are an appealing place for telecommunication providers to offer in-network processing such as VPN services, security monitoring, and 5G. Placing these network services closer to users can reduce latency and core network bandwidth, but the deployment of network functions at the edge poses several important challenges. Edge data centers have limited resource capacity, yet network functions are re-source intensive with strict performance requirements. Replicating services at the edge is needed to meet demand, but balancing the load across multiple servers can be challenging due to diverse service costs, server and flow heterogeneity, and dynamic workload conditions. Inmore »this paper, we design and implement a model-based load balancer EdgeBalance for edge network data planes. EdgeBalance predicts the CPU demand of incoming traffic and adaptively distributes flows to servers to keep them evenly balanced. We overcome several challenges specific to network processing at the edge to improve throughput and latency over static load balancing and monitoring-based approaches.« less
  3. Obeid, I. (Ed.)
    The Neural Engineering Data Consortium (NEDC) is developing the Temple University Digital Pathology Corpus (TUDP), an open source database of high-resolution images from scanned pathology samples [1], as part of its National Science Foundation-funded Major Research Instrumentation grant titled “MRI: High Performance Digital Pathology Using Big Data and Machine Learning” [2]. The long-term goal of this project is to release one million images. We have currently scanned over 100,000 images and are in the process of annotating breast tissue data for our first official corpus release, v1.0.0. This release contains 3,505 annotated images of breast tissue including 74 patients withmore »cancerous diagnoses (out of a total of 296 patients). In this poster, we will present an analysis of this corpus and discuss the challenges we have faced in efficiently producing high quality annotations of breast tissue. It is well known that state of the art algorithms in machine learning require vast amounts of data. Fields such as speech recognition [3], image recognition [4] and text processing [5] are able to deliver impressive performance with complex deep learning models because they have developed large corpora to support training of extremely high-dimensional models (e.g., billions of parameters). Other fields that do not have access to such data resources must rely on techniques in which existing models can be adapted to new datasets [6]. A preliminary version of this breast corpus release was tested in a pilot study using a baseline machine learning system, ResNet18 [7], that leverages several open-source Python tools. The pilot corpus was divided into three sets: train, development, and evaluation. Portions of these slides were manually annotated [1] using the nine labels in Table 1 [8] to identify five to ten examples of pathological features on each slide. Not every pathological feature is annotated, meaning excluded areas can include focuses particular to these labels that are not used for training. A summary of the number of patches within each label is given in Table 2. To maintain a balanced training set, 1,000 patches of each label were used to train the machine learning model. Throughout all sets, only annotated patches were involved in model development. The performance of this model in identifying all the patches in the evaluation set can be seen in the confusion matrix of classification accuracy in Table 3. The highest performing labels were background, 97% correct identification, and artifact, 76% correct identification. A correlation exists between labels with more than 6,000 development patches and accurate performance on the evaluation set. Additionally, these results indicated a need to further refine the annotation of invasive ductal carcinoma (“indc”), inflammation (“infl”), nonneoplastic features (“nneo”), normal (“norm”) and suspicious (“susp”). This pilot experiment motivated changes to the corpus that will be discussed in detail in this poster presentation. To increase the accuracy of the machine learning model, we modified how we addressed underperforming labels. One common source of error arose with how non-background labels were converted into patches. Large areas of background within other labels were isolated within a patch resulting in connective tissue misrepresenting a non-background label. In response, the annotation overlay margins were revised to exclude benign connective tissue in non-background labels. Corresponding patient reports and supporting immunohistochemical stains further guided annotation reviews. The microscopic diagnoses given by the primary pathologist in these reports detail the pathological findings within each tissue site, but not within each specific slide. The microscopic diagnoses informed revisions specifically targeting annotated regions classified as cancerous, ensuring that the labels “indc” and “dcis” were used only in situations where a micropathologist diagnosed it as such. Further differentiation of cancerous and precancerous labels, as well as the location of their focus on a slide, could be accomplished with supplemental immunohistochemically (IHC) stained slides. When distinguishing whether a focus is a nonneoplastic feature versus a cancerous growth, pathologists employ antigen targeting stains to the tissue in question to confirm the diagnosis. For example, a nonneoplastic feature of usual ductal hyperplasia will display diffuse staining for cytokeratin 5 (CK5) and no diffuse staining for estrogen receptor (ER), while a cancerous growth of ductal carcinoma in situ will have negative or focally positive staining for CK5 and diffuse staining for ER [9]. Many tissue samples contain cancerous and non-cancerous features with morphological overlaps that cause variability between annotators. The informative fields IHC slides provide could play an integral role in machine model pathology diagnostics. Following the revisions made on all the annotations, a second experiment was run using ResNet18. Compared to the pilot study, an increase of model prediction accuracy was seen for the labels indc, infl, nneo, norm, and null. This increase is correlated with an increase in annotated area and annotation accuracy. Model performance in identifying the suspicious label decreased by 25% due to the decrease of 57% in the total annotated area described by this label. A summary of the model performance is given in Table 4, which shows the new prediction accuracy and the absolute change in error rate compared to Table 3. The breast tissue subset we are developing includes 3,505 annotated breast pathology slides from 296 patients. The average size of a scanned SVS file is 363 MB. The annotations are stored in an XML format. A CSV version of the annotation file is also available which provides a flat, or simple, annotation that is easy for machine learning researchers to access and interface to their systems. Each patient is identified by an anonymized medical reference number. Within each patient’s directory, one or more sessions are identified, also anonymized to the first of the month in which the sample was taken. These sessions are broken into groupings of tissue taken on that date (in this case, breast tissue). A deidentified patient report stored as a flat text file is also available. Within these slides there are a total of 16,971 total annotated regions with an average of 4.84 annotations per slide. Among those annotations, 8,035 are non-cancerous (normal, background, null, and artifact,) 6,222 are carcinogenic signs (inflammation, nonneoplastic and suspicious,) and 2,714 are cancerous labels (ductal carcinoma in situ and invasive ductal carcinoma in situ.) The individual patients are split up into three sets: train, development, and evaluation. Of the 74 cancerous patients, 20 were allotted for both the development and evaluation sets, while the remain 34 were allotted for train. The remaining 222 patients were split up to preserve the overall distribution of labels within the corpus. This was done in hope of creating control sets for comparable studies. Overall, the development and evaluation sets each have 80 patients, while the training set has 136 patients. In a related component of this project, slides from the Fox Chase Cancer Center (FCCC) Biosample Repository (https://www.foxchase.org/research/facilities/genetic-research-facilities/biosample-repository -facility) are being digitized in addition to slides provided by Temple University Hospital. This data includes 18 different types of tissue including approximately 38.5% urinary tissue and 16.5% gynecological tissue. These slides and the metadata provided with them are already anonymized and include diagnoses in a spreadsheet with sample and patient ID. We plan to release over 13,000 unannotated slides from the FCCC Corpus simultaneously with v1.0.0 of TUDP. Details of this release will also be discussed in this poster. Few digitally annotated databases of pathology samples like TUDP exist due to the extensive data collection and processing required. The breast corpus subset should be released by November 2021. By December 2021 we should also release the unannotated FCCC data. We are currently annotating urinary tract data as well. We expect to release about 5,600 processed TUH slides in this subset. We have an additional 53,000 unprocessed TUH slides digitized. Corpora of this size will stimulate the development of a new generation of deep learning technology. In clinical settings where resources are limited, an assistive diagnoses model could support pathologists’ workload and even help prioritize suspected cancerous cases. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This material is supported by the National Science Foundation under grants nos. CNS-1726188 and 1925494. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation. REFERENCES [1] N. Shawki et al., “The Temple University Digital Pathology Corpus,” 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 City, New York, USA: Springer, 2020, pp. 67 104. https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783030368432. [2] J. Picone, T. Farkas, I. Obeid, and Y. Persidsky, “MRI: High Performance Digital Pathology Using Big Data and Machine Learning.” Major Research Instrumentation (MRI), Division of Computer and Network Systems, Award No. 1726188, January 1, 2018 – December 31, 2021. https://www. isip.piconepress.com/projects/nsf_dpath/. [3] A. Gulati et al., “Conformer: Convolution-augmented Transformer for Speech Recognition,” in Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the International Speech Communication Association (INTERSPEECH), 2020, pp. 5036-5040. https://doi.org/10.21437/interspeech.2020-3015. [4] C.-J. Wu et al., “Machine Learning at Facebook: Understanding Inference at the Edge,” in Proceedings of the IEEE International Symposium on High Performance Computer Architecture (HPCA), 2019, pp. 331–344. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8675201. [5] I. Caswell and B. Liang, “Recent Advances in Google Translate,” Google AI Blog: The latest from Google Research, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://ai.googleblog.com/2020/06/recent-advances-in-google-translate.html. [Accessed: 01-Aug-2021]. [6] V. Khalkhali, N. Shawki, V. Shah, M. Golmohammadi, I. Obeid, and J. Picone, “Low Latency Real-Time Seizure Detection Using Transfer Deep Learning,” in Proceedings of the IEEE Signal Processing in Medicine and Biology Symposium (SPMB), 2021, pp. 1 7. https://www.isip. piconepress.com/publications/conference_proceedings/2021/ieee_spmb/eeg_transfer_learning/. [7] J. Picone, T. Farkas, I. Obeid, and Y. Persidsky, “MRI: High Performance Digital Pathology Using Big Data and Machine Learning,” Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA, 2020. https://www.isip.piconepress.com/publications/reports/2020/nsf/mri_dpath/. [8] I. Hunt, S. Husain, J. Simons, I. Obeid, and J. Picone, “Recent Advances in the Temple University Digital Pathology Corpus,” in Proceedings of the IEEE Signal Processing in Medicine and Biology Symposium (SPMB), 2019, pp. 1–4. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9037859. [9] A. P. Martinez, C. Cohen, K. Z. Hanley, and X. (Bill) Li, “Estrogen Receptor and Cytokeratin 5 Are Reliable Markers to Separate Usual Ductal Hyperplasia From Atypical Ductal Hyperplasia and Low-Grade Ductal Carcinoma In Situ,” Arch. Pathol. Lab. Med., vol. 140, no. 7, pp. 686–689, Apr. 2016. https://doi.org/10.5858/arpa.2015-0238-OA.« less
  4. Biological neural computation is inherently asynchronous due to large variations in neuronal spike timing and transmission delays. So-far, most theoretical work on neural networks assumes the synchronous setting where neurons fire simultaneously in discrete rounds. In this work we aim at understanding the barriers of asynchronous neural computation from an algorithmic perspective. We consider an extension of the widely studied model of synchronized spiking neurons [Maass, Neural Networks 97] to the asynchronous setting by taking into account edge and node delays. - Edge Delays: We define an asynchronous model for spiking neurons in which the latency values (i.e., transmission delays)more »of non self-loop edges vary adversarially over time. This extends the recent work of [Hitron and Parter, ESA'19] in which the latency values are restricted to be fixed over time. Our first contribution is an impossibility result that implies that the assumption that self-loop edges have no delays (as assumed in Hitron and Parter) is indeed necessary. Interestingly, in real biological networks self-loop edges (a.k.a. autapse) are indeed free of delays, and the latter has been noted by neuroscientists to be crucial for network synchronization. To capture the computational challenges in this setting, we first consider the implementation of a single NOT gate. This simple function already captures the fundamental difficulties in the asynchronous setting. Our key technical results are space and time upper and lower bounds for the NOT function, our time bounds are tight. In the spirit of the distributed synchronizers [Awerbuch and Peleg, FOCS'90] and following [Hitron and Parter, ESA'19], we then provide a general synchronizer machinery. Our construction is very modular and it is based on efficient circuit implementation of threshold gates. The complexity of our scheme is measured by the overhead in the number of neurons and the computation time, both are shown to be polynomial in the largest latency value, and the largest incoming degree Δ of the original network. - Node Delays: We introduce the study of asynchronous communication due to variations in the response rates of the neurons in the network. In real brain networks, the round duration varies between different neurons in the network. Our key result is a simulation methodology that allows one to transform the above mentioned synchronized solution under edge delays into a synchronized under node delays while incurring a small overhead w.r.t space and time.« less
  5. Biological neural computation is inherently asynchronous due to large variations in neuronal spike timing and transmission delays. So-far, most theoretical work on neural networks assumes the synchronous setting where neurons fire simultaneously in discrete rounds. In this work we aim at understanding the barriers of asynchronous neural computation from an algorithmic perspective. We consider an extension of the widely studied model of synchronized spiking neurons [Maass, Neural= Networks 97] to the asynchronous setting by taking into account edge and node delays. Edge Delays: We define an asynchronous model for spiking neurons in which the latency values (i.e., transmission delays) ofmore »non self-loop edges vary adversarially over time. This extends the recent work of [Hitron and Parter, ESA’19] in which the latency values are restricted to be fixed over time. Our first contribution is an impossibility result that implies that the assumption that self-loop edges have no delays (as assumed in Hitron and Parter) is indeed necessary. Interestingly, in real biological networks self-loop edges (a.k.a. autapse) are indeed free of delays, and the latter has been noted by neuroscientists to be crucial for network synchronization. To capture the computational challenges in this setting, we first consider the implementation of a single NOT gate. This simple function already captures the fundamental difficulties in the asynchronous setting. Our key technical results are space and time upper and lower bounds for the NOT function, our time bounds are tight. In the spirit of the distributed synchronizers [Awerbuch and Peleg, FOCS’90] and following [Hitron and Parter, ESA’19], we then provide a general synchronizer machinery. Our construction is very modular and it is based on efficient circuit implementation of threshold gates. The complexity of our scheme is measured by the overhead in the number of neurons and the computation time, both are shown to be polynomial in the largest latency value, and the largest incoming degree ∆ of the original network. Node Delays: We introduce the study of asynchronous communication due to variations in the response rates of the neurons in the network. In real brain networks, the round duration varies between different neurons in the network. Our key result is a simulation methodology that allows one to transform the above mentioned synchronized solution under edge delays into a synchronized under node delays while incurring a small overhead w.r.t space and time.« less