More Like this

1. Low-Latency Graph Streaming using Compressed Purely-Functional Trees

   Dhulipala, Laxman ; Blelloch, Guy ; Shun, Julian ( June 2019 , Proceedings of the ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation (PLDI))

   There has been a growing interest in the graph-streaming setting where a continuous stream of graph updates is mixed with graph queries. In principle, purely-functional trees are an ideal fit for this setting as they enable safe parallelism, lightweight snapshots, and strict serializability for queries. However, directly using them for graph processing leads to significant space overhead and poor cache locality. This paper presents C-trees, a compressed purely-functional search tree data structure that significantly improves on the space usage and locality of purely-functional trees. We design theoretically-efficient and practical algorithms for performing batch updates to C-trees, and also show that we can store massive dynamic real-world graphs using only a few bytes per edge, thereby achieving space usage close to that of the best static graph processing frameworks. To study the applicability of our data structure, we designed Aspen, a graph-streaming framework that extends the interface of Ligra with operations for updating graphs. We show that Aspen is faster than two state-of-the-art graph-streaming systems, Stinger and LLAMA, while requiring less memory, and is competitive in performance with the state-of-the-art static graph frameworks, Galois, GAP, and Ligra+. With Aspen, we are able to efficiently process the largest publicly-available graph with over two hundred billion edges in the graph-streaming setting using a single commodity multicore server with 1TB of memory. 

   more » « less
2. Robustly Self-Ordered Graphs: Constructions and Applications to Property Testing

   Goldreich, Oded ; Wigderson, Avi ( November 2020 , Electronic colloquium on computational complexity)

   null (Ed.)

   A graph G is called {\em self-ordered} (a.k.a asymmetric) if the identity permutation is its only automorphism. Equivalently, there is a unique isomorphism from G to any graph that is isomorphic to G. We say that G=(VE) is {\em robustly self-ordered}if the size of the symmetric difference between E and the edge-set of the graph obtained by permuting V using any permutation :VV is proportional to the number of non-fixed-points of . In this work, we initiate the study of the structure, construction and utility of robustly self-ordered graphs. We show that robustly self-ordered bounded-degree graphs exist (in abundance), and that they can be constructed efficiently, in a strong sense. Specifically, given the index of a vertex in such a graph, it is possible to find all its neighbors in polynomial-time (i.e., in time that is poly-logarithmic in the size of the graph). We provide two very different constructions, in tools and structure. The first, a direct construction, is based on proving a sufficient condition for robust self-ordering, which requires that an auxiliary graph, on {\em pairs} of vertices of the original graph, is expanding. In this case the original graph is (not only robustly self-ordered but) also expanding. The second construction proceeds in three steps: It boosts the mere existence of robustly self-ordered graphs, which provides explicit graphs of sublogarithmic size, to an efficient construction of polynomial-size graphs, and then, repeating it again, to exponential-size(robustly self-ordered) graphs that are locally constructible. This construction can yield robustly self-ordered graphs that are either expanders or highly disconnected, having logarithmic size connected components. We also consider graphs of unbounded degree, seeking correspondingly unbounded robustness parameters. We again demonstrate that such graphs (of linear degree)exist (in abundance), and that they can be constructed efficiently, in a strong sense. This turns out to require very different tools. Specifically, we show that the construction of such graphs reduces to the construction of non-malleable two-source extractors with very weak parameters but with some additional natural features. We actually show two reductions, one simpler than the other but yielding a less efficient construction when combined with the known constructions of extractors. We demonstrate that robustly self-ordered bounded-degree graphs are useful towards obtaining lower bounds on the query complexity of testing graph properties both in the bounded-degree and the dense graph models. Indeed, their robustness offers efficient, local and distance preserving reductions from testing problems on ordered structures (like sequences) to the unordered (effectively unlabeled) graphs. One of the results that we obtain, via such a reduction, is a subexponential separation between the query complexities of testing and tolerant testing of graph properties in the bounded-degree graph model. Changes to previous version: We retract the claims made in our initial posting regarding the construction of non-malleable two-source extractors (which are quasi-orthogonal) as well as the claims about the construction of relocation-detecting codes (see Theorems 1.5 and 1.6 in the original version). The source of trouble is a fundamental flaw in the proof of Lemma 9.7 (in the original version), which may as well be wrong. Hence, the original Section 9 was omitted, except that the original Section 9.3 was retained as a new Section 8.3. The original Section 8 appears as Section 8.0 and 8.1, and Section 8.2 is new. 

   more » « less
3. Parallel Strong Connectivity Based on Faster Reachability

   https://doi.org/10.1145/3589259  

   Wang, Letong ; Dong, Xiaojun ; Gu, Yan ; Sun, Yihan ( June 2023 , Proceedings of the ACM on Management of Data)

   Computing strongly connected components (SCC) is among the most fundamental problems in graph analytics. Given the large size of today's real-world graphs, parallel SCC implementation is increasingly important. SCC is challenging in the parallel setting and is particularly hard on large-diameter graphs. Many existing parallel SCC implementations can be even slower than Tarjan's sequential algorithm on large-diameter graphs.

   To tackle this challenge, we propose an efficient parallel SCC implementation using a new parallel reachability approach. Our solution is based on a novel idea referred to as vertical granularity control (VGC). It breaks the synchronization barriers to increase parallelism and hide scheduling overhead. To use VGC in our SCC algorithm, we also design an efficient data structure called the parallel hash bag. It uses parallel dynamic resizing to avoid redundant work in maintaining frontiers (vertices processed in a round).

   We implement the parallel SCC algorithm by Blelloch et al. (J. ACM, 2020) using our new parallel reachability approach. We compare our implementation to the state-of-the-art systems, including GBBS, iSpan, Multi-step, and our highly optimized Tarjan's (sequential) algorithm, on 18 graphs, including social, web, k-NN, and lattice graphs. On a machine with 96 cores, our implementation is the fastest on 16 out of 18 graphs. On average (geometric means) over all graphs, our SCC is 6.0× faster than the best previous parallel code (GBBS), 12.8× faster than Tarjan's sequential algorithms, and 2.7× faster than the best existing implementation on each graph.

   We believe that our techniques are of independent interest. We also apply our parallel hash bag and VGC scheme to other graph problems, including connectivity and least-element lists (LE-lists). Our implementations improve the performance of the state-of-the-art parallel implementations for these two problems.

    

   more » « less
4. Approximate Mining of Frequent -Subgraph Patterns in Evolving Graphs

   https://doi.org/10.1145/3442590  

   Nasir, Muhammad Anis ; Aslay, Cigdem ; Morales, Gianmarco De ; Riondato, Matteo ( April 2021 , ACM Transactions on Knowledge Discovery from Data)

   null (Ed.)

   “Perhaps he could dance first and think afterwards, if it isn’t too much to ask him.” S. Beckett, Waiting for Godot Given a labeled graph, the collection of -vertex induced connected subgraph patterns that appear in the graph more frequently than a user-specified minimum threshold provides a compact summary of the characteristics of the graph, and finds applications ranging from biology to network science. However, finding these patterns is challenging, even more so for dynamic graphs that evolve over time, due to the streaming nature of the input and the exponential time complexity of the problem. We study this task in both incremental and fully-dynamic streaming settings, where arbitrary edges can be added or removed from the graph. We present TipTap , a suite of algorithms to compute high-quality approximations of the frequent -vertex subgraphs w.r.t. a given threshold, at any time (i.e., point of the stream), with high probability. In contrast to existing state-of-the-art solutions that require iterating over the entire set of subgraphs in the vicinity of the updated edge, TipTap operates by efficiently maintaining a uniform sample of connected -vertex subgraphs, thanks to an optimized neighborhood-exploration procedure. We provide a theoretical analysis of the proposed algorithms in terms of their unbiasedness and of the sample size needed to obtain a desired approximation quality. Our analysis relies on sample-complexity bounds that use Vapnik–Chervonenkis dimension, a key concept from statistical learning theory, which allows us to derive a sufficient sample size that is independent from the size of the graph. The results of our empirical evaluation demonstrates that TipTap returns high-quality results more efficiently and accurately than existing baselines. 

   more » « less
5. 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