More Like this

1. Subscribing to big data at scale

   https://doi.org/10.1007/s10619-022-07406-w  

   Wang, Xikui ; Carey, Michael J. ; Tsotras, Vassilis J. ( April 2022 , Distributed and Parallel Databases)

   Today, data is being actively generated by a variety of devices, services, and applications. Such data is important not only for the information that it contains, but also for its relationships to other data and to interested users. Most existing Big Data systems focus onpassivelyanswering queries from users, rather thanactivelycollecting data, processing it, and serving it to users. To satisfy both passive and active requests at scale, application developers need either to heavily customize an existing passive Big Data system or to glue one together with systems likeStreaming EnginesandPub-sub services. Either choice requires significant effort and incurs additional overhead. In this paper, we present the BAD (Big Active Data) system as an end-to-end, out-of-the-box solution for this challenge. It is designed to preserve the merits of passive Big Data systems and introduces new features for actively serving Big Data to users at scale. We show the design and implementation of the BAD system, demonstrate how BAD facilitates providing both passive and active data services, investigate the BAD system’s performance at scale, and illustrate the complexities that would result from instead providing BAD-like services with a “glued” system.

    

   more » « less
2. Building an end-to-end BAD application

   https://doi.org/10.1145/3465480.3467840  

   Shirazi, Shahrzad Haji ; Carey, Michael J. ; Tsotras, Vassilis J. ( June 2021 , Proceedings of the 15th ACM International Conference on Distributed and Event-based Systems)

   null (Ed.)

   Traditional big data infrastructures are passive in nature, passively answering user requests to process and return data. In many applications however, users not only need to analyze data, but also to subscribe to and actively receive data of interest, based on their subscriptions. Their interest may include the incoming data's content as well as its relationships to other data. Moreover, data delivered to subscribers may need to be enriched with additional relevant and actionable information. To address this Big Active Data (BAD) challenge we have advocated the need for building scalable BAD systems that continuously and reliably capture big data while enabling timely and automatic delivery of relevant and possibly enriched information to a large pool of subscribers. In this demo we showcase how to build an end-to-end active application using a BAD system and a standard email broker for data delivery. This includes enabling users to register their interests with the bad system, ingesting and monitoring data, and producing customized results and delivering them to the appropriate subscribers. Through this example we demonstrate that even complex active data applications can be created easily and scale to many users, considerably limiting the effort of application developers, if a BAD approach is taken. 

   more » « less
3. Modeling and tracking Covid-19 cases using Big Data analytics on HPCC system platform

   https://doi.org/10.1186/s40537-021-00423-z  

   Villanustre, Flavio ; Chala, Arjuna ; Dev, Roger ; Xu, Lili ; LexisNexis, Jesse Shaw ; Furht, Borko ; Khoshgoftaar, Taghi ( December 2021 , Journal of Big Data)

   Abstract This project is funded by the US National Science Foundation (NSF) through their NSF RAPID program under the title “Modeling Corona Spread Using Big Data Analytics.” The project is a joint effort between the Department of Computer & Electrical Engineering and Computer Science at FAU and a research group from LexisNexis Risk Solutions. The novel coronavirus Covid-19 originated in China in early December 2019 and has rapidly spread to many countries around the globe, with the number of confirmed cases increasing every day. Covid-19 is officially a pandemic. It is a novel infection with serious clinical manifestations, including death, and it has reached at least 124 countries and territories. Although the ultimate course and impact of Covid-19 are uncertain, it is not merely possible but likely that the disease will produce enough severe illness to overwhelm the worldwide health care infrastructure. Emerging viral pandemics can place extraordinary and sustained demands on public health and health systems and on providers of essential community services. Modeling the Covid-19 pandemic spread is challenging. But there are data that can be used to project resource demands. Estimates of the reproductive number (R) of SARS-CoV-2 show that at the beginning of the epidemic, each infected person spreads the virus to at least two others, on average (Emanuel et al. in N Engl J Med. 2020, Livingston and Bucher in JAMA 323(14):1335, 2020). A conservatively low estimate is that 5 % of the population could become infected within 3 months. Preliminary data from China and Italy regarding the distribution of case severity and fatality vary widely (Wu and McGoogan in JAMA 323(13):1239–42, 2020). A recent large-scale analysis from China suggests that 80 % of those infected either are asymptomatic or have mild symptoms; a finding that implies that demand for advanced medical services might apply to only 20 % of the total infected. Of patients infected with Covid-19, about 15 % have severe illness and 5 % have critical illness (Emanuel et al. in N Engl J Med. 2020). Overall, mortality ranges from 0.25 % to as high as 3.0 % (Emanuel et al. in N Engl J Med. 2020, Wilson et al. in Emerg Infect Dis 26(6):1339, 2020). Case fatality rates are much higher for vulnerable populations, such as persons over the age of 80 years (> 14 %) and those with coexisting conditions (10 % for those with cardiovascular disease and 7 % for those with diabetes) (Emanuel et al. in N Engl J Med. 2020). Overall, Covid-19 is substantially deadlier than seasonal influenza, which has a mortality of roughly 0.1 %. Public health efforts depend heavily on predicting how diseases such as those caused by Covid-19 spread across the globe. During the early days of a new outbreak, when reliable data are still scarce, researchers turn to mathematical models that can predict where people who could be infected are going and how likely they are to bring the disease with them. These computational methods use known statistical equations that calculate the probability of individuals transmitting the illness. Modern computational power allows these models to quickly incorporate multiple inputs, such as a given disease’s ability to pass from person to person and the movement patterns of potentially infected people traveling by air and land. This process sometimes involves making assumptions about unknown factors, such as an individual’s exact travel pattern. By plugging in different possible versions of each input, however, researchers can update the models as new information becomes available and compare their results to observed patterns for the illness. In this paper we describe the development a model of Corona spread by using innovative big data analytics techniques and tools. We leveraged our experience from research in modeling Ebola spread (Shaw et al. Modeling Ebola Spread and Using HPCC/KEL System. In: Big Data Technologies and Applications 2016 (pp. 347-385). Springer, Cham) to successfully model Corona spread, we will obtain new results, and help in reducing the number of Corona patients. We closely collaborated with LexisNexis, which is a leading US data analytics company and a member of our NSF I/UCRC for Advanced Knowledge Enablement. The lack of a comprehensive view and informative analysis of the status of the pandemic can also cause panic and instability within society. Our work proposes the HPCC Systems Covid-19 tracker, which provides a multi-level view of the pandemic with the informative virus spreading indicators in a timely manner. The system embeds a classical epidemiological model known as SIR and spreading indicators based on causal model. The data solution of the tracker is built on top of the Big Data processing platform HPCC Systems, from ingesting and tracking of various data sources to fast delivery of the data to the public. The HPCC Systems Covid-19 tracker presents the Covid-19 data on a daily, weekly, and cumulative basis up to global-level and down to the county-level. It also provides statistical analysis for each level such as new cases per 100,000 population. The primary analysis such as Contagion Risk and Infection State is based on causal model with a seven-day sliding window. Our work has been released as a publicly available website to the world and attracted a great volume of traffic. The project is open-sourced and available on GitHub. The system was developed on the LexisNexis HPCC Systems, which is briefly described in the paper. 

   more » « less
4. 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
5. Towards a NoOps Model for WLCG

   https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1051/epjconf/202024507024  

   Gardner, Robert ; Bryant, Lincoln ; Stephen, Judith ; Vukotic, Ilija ; Weaver, Christopher ; Wu, Wenjing ( November 2020 , 24th International Conference on Computing in High Energy and Nuclear Physics (CHEP 2019))

   null (Ed.)

   One of the most costly factors in providing a global computing infrastructure such as the WLCG is the human effort in deployment, integration, and operation of the distributed services supporting collaborative computing, data sharing and delivery, and analysis of extreme scale datasets. Furthermore, the time required to roll out global software updates, introduce new service components, or prototype novel systems requiring coordinated deployments across multiple facilities is often increased by communication latencies, staff availability, and in many cases expertise required for operations of bespoke services. While the WLCG (and distributed systems implemented throughout HEP) is a global service platform, it lacks the capability and flexibility of a modern platform-as-a-service including continuous integration/continuous delivery (CI/CD) methods, development-operations capabilities (DevOps, where developers assume a more direct role in the actual production infrastructure), and automation. Most importantly, tooling which reduces required training, bespoke service expertise, and the operational effort throughout the infrastructure, most notably at the resource endpoints (sites), is entirely absent in the current model. In this paper, we explore ideas and questions around potential NoOps models in this context: what is realistic given organizational policies and constraints? How should operational responsibility be organized across teams and facilities? What are the technical gaps? What are the social and cybersecurity challenges? Conversely what advantages does a NoOps model deliver for innovation and for accelerating the pace of delivery of new services needed for the HL-LHC era? We will describe initial work along these lines in the context of providing a data delivery network supporting IRIS-HEP DOMA R&D. 

   more » « less