More Like this

1. Efficient Representation of Numerical Optimization Problems for SNARKs

   Angel, Sebastian ; Blumberg, Andrew J ; Ioannidis, Eleftherios ; Woods, Jess ( August 2022 , USENIX Security Symposium)

   This paper introduces Otti, a general-purpose com- piler for (zk)SNARKs that provides support for numerical op- timization problems. Otti produces efficient arithmetizations of programs that contain optimization problems including linear programming (LP), semi-definite programming (SDP), and a broad class of stochastic gradient descent (SGD) instances. Numerical optimization is a fundamental algorithmic building block: applications include scheduling and resource allocation tasks, approximations to NP-hard problems, and training of neural networks. Otti takes as input arbitrary programs written in a subset of C that contain optimization problems specified via an easy-to-use API. Otti then automatically produces rank-1 constraint satisfiability (R1CS) instances that express a succinct transformation of those programs. Correct execution of the transformed program implies the optimality of the solution to the original optimization problem. Our evaluation on real benchmarks shows that Otti, instantiated with the Spartan proof system, can prove the optimality of solutions in zero-knowledge in as little as 100 ms—over 4 orders of magnitude faster than existing approaches. 

   more » « less
2. Learning Hard Optimization Problems: A Data Generation Perspective

   Kotary, James ; Fioretto, Ferdinando ; Van Hentenryck, Pascal ( January 2021 , Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 34 (NeurIPS 2021))

   Optimization problems are ubiquitous in our societies and are present in almost every segment of the economy. Most of these optimization problems are NP-hard and computationally demanding, often requiring approximate solutions for large-scale instances. Machine learning frameworks that learn to approximate solutions to such hard optimization problems are a potentially promising avenue to address these difficulties, particularly when many closely related problem instances must be solved repeatedly. Supervised learning frameworks can train a model using the outputs of pre-solved instances. However, when the outputs are themselves approximations, when the optimization problem has symmetric solutions, and/or when the solver uses randomization, solutions to closely related instances may exhibit large differences and the learning task can become inherently more difficult. This paper demonstrates this critical challenge, connects the volatility of the training data to the ability of a model to approximate it, and proposes a method for producing (exact or approximate) solutions to optimization problems that are more amenable to supervised learning tasks. The effectiveness of the method is tested on hard non-linear nonconvex and discrete combinatorial problems. 

   more » « less
3. Zygarde: Time-Sensitive On-Device Deep Inference and Adaptation on Intermittently-Powered Systems

   https://doi.org/10.1145/3411808  

   Islam, Bashima ; Nirjon, Shahriar ( September 2020 , Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies)

   null (Ed.)

   We propose Zygarde --- which is an energy- and accuracy-aware soft real-time task scheduling framework for batteryless systems that flexibly execute deep learning tasks1 that are suitable for running on microcontrollers. The sporadic nature of harvested energy, resource constraints of the embedded platform, and the computational demand of deep neural networks (DNNs) pose a unique and challenging real-time scheduling problem for which no solutions have been proposed in the literature. We empirically study the problem and model the energy harvesting pattern as well as the trade-off between the accuracy and execution of a DNN. We develop an imprecise computing-based scheduling algorithm that improves the timeliness of DNN tasks on intermittently powered systems. We evaluate Zygarde using four standard datasets as well as by deploying it in six real-life applications involving audio and camera sensor systems. Results show that Zygarde decreases the execution time by up to 26% and schedules 9% -- 34% more tasks with up to 21% higher inference accuracy, compared to traditional schedulers such as the earliest deadline first (EDF). 

   more » « less
4. Toward Efficient and Adaptive Design of Video Detection System with Deep Neural Networks

   https://doi.org/10.1145/3484946  

   Mao, Jiachen ; Yang, Qing ; Li, Ang ; Nixon, Kent W. ; Li, Hai ; Chen, Yiran ( May 2022 , ACM Transactions on Embedded Computing Systems)

   In the past decade, Deep Neural Networks (DNNs), e.g., Convolutional Neural Networks, achieved human-level performance in vision tasks such as object classification and detection. However, DNNs are known to be computationally expensive and thus hard to be deployed in real-time and edge applications. Many previous works have focused on DNN model compression to obtain smaller parameter sizes and consequently, less computational cost. Such methods, however, often introduce noticeable accuracy degradation. In this work, we optimize a state-of-the-art DNN-based video detection framework—Deep Feature Flow (DFF) from the cloud end using three proposed ideas. First, we propose Asynchronous DFF (ADFF) to asynchronously execute the neural networks. Second, we propose a Video-based Dynamic Scheduling (VDS) method that decides the detection frequency based on the magnitude of movement between video frames. Last, we propose Spatial Sparsity Inference, which only performs the inference on part of the video frame and thus reduces the computation cost. According to our experimental results, ADFF can reduce the bottleneck latency from 89 to 19 ms. VDS increases the detection accuracy by 0.6% mAP without increasing computation cost. And SSI further saves 0.2 ms with a 0.6% mAP degradation of detection accuracy. 

   more » « less
5. Issues in the Reproducibility of Deep Learning Results

   https://doi.org/10.1109/SPMB47826.2019.9037840  

   Jean-Paul, S. ; Elseify, T. ; Obeid, I. ; Picone, J. ( December 2019 , IEEE Signal Processing in Medicine and Biology Symposium (SPMB))

   Obeid, I. ; Selesnik, I. ; Picone, J. (Ed.)

   The Neuronix high-performance computing cluster allows us to conduct extensive machine learning experiments on big data [1]. This heterogeneous cluster uses innovative scheduling technology, Slurm [2], that manages a network of CPUs and graphics processing units (GPUs). The GPU farm consists of a variety of processors ranging from low-end consumer grade devices such as the Nvidia GTX 970 to higher-end devices such as the GeForce RTX 2080. These GPUs are essential to our research since they allow extremely compute-intensive deep learning tasks to be executed on massive data resources such as the TUH EEG Corpus [2]. We use TensorFlow [3] as the core machine learning library for our deep learning systems, and routinely employ multiple GPUs to accelerate the training process. Reproducible results are essential to machine learning research. Reproducibility in this context means the ability to replicate an existing experiment – performance metrics such as error rates should be identical and floating-point calculations should match closely. Three examples of ways we typically expect an experiment to be replicable are: (1) The same job run on the same processor should produce the same results each time it is run. (2) A job run on a CPU and GPU should produce identical results. (3) A job should produce comparable results if the data is presented in a different order. System optimization requires an ability to directly compare error rates for algorithms evaluated under comparable operating conditions. However, it is a difficult task to exactly reproduce the results for large, complex deep learning systems that often require more than a trillion calculations per experiment [5]. This is a fairly well-known issue and one we will explore in this poster. Researchers must be able to replicate results on a specific data set to establish the integrity of an implementation. They can then use that implementation as a baseline for comparison purposes. A lack of reproducibility makes it very difficult to debug algorithms and validate changes to the system. Equally important, since many results in deep learning research are dependent on the order in which the system is exposed to the data, the specific processors used, and even the order in which those processors are accessed, it becomes a challenging problem to compare two algorithms since each system must be individually optimized for a specific data set or processor. This is extremely time-consuming for algorithm research in which a single run often taxes a computing environment to its limits. Well-known techniques such as cross-validation [5,6] can be used to mitigate these effects, but this is also computationally expensive. These issues are further compounded by the fact that most deep learning algorithms are susceptible to the way computational noise propagates through the system. GPUs are particularly notorious for this because, in a clustered environment, it becomes more difficult to control which processors are used at various points in time. Another equally frustrating issue is that upgrades to the deep learning package, such as the transition from TensorFlow v1.9 to v1.13, can also result in large fluctuations in error rates when re-running the same experiment. Since TensorFlow is constantly updating functions to support GPU use, maintaining an historical archive of experimental results that can be used to calibrate algorithm research is quite a challenge. This makes it very difficult to optimize the system or select the best configurations. The overall impact of all of these issues described above is significant as error rates can fluctuate by as much as 25% due to these types of computational issues. Cross-validation is one technique used to mitigate this, but that is expensive since you need to do multiple runs over the data, which further taxes a computing infrastructure already running at max capacity. GPUs are preferred when training a large network since these systems train at least two orders of magnitude faster than CPUs [7]. Large-scale experiments are simply not feasible without using GPUs. However, there is a tradeoff to gain this performance. Since all our GPUs use the NVIDIA CUDA® Deep Neural Network library (cuDNN) [8], a GPU-accelerated library of primitives for deep neural networks, it adds an element of randomness into the experiment. When a GPU is used to train a network in TensorFlow, it automatically searches for a cuDNN implementation. NVIDIA’s cuDNN implementation provides algorithms that increase the performance and help the model train quicker, but they are non-deterministic algorithms [9,10]. Since our networks have many complex layers, there is no easy way to avoid this randomness. Instead of comparing each epoch, we compare the average performance of the experiment because it gives us a hint of how our model is performing per experiment, and if the changes we make are efficient. In this poster, we will discuss a variety of issues related to reproducibility and introduce ways we mitigate these effects. For example, TensorFlow uses a random number generator (RNG) which is not seeded by default. TensorFlow determines the initialization point and how certain functions execute using the RNG. The solution for this is seeding all the necessary components before training the model. This forces TensorFlow to use the same initialization point and sets how certain layers work (e.g., dropout layers). However, seeding all the RNGs will not guarantee a controlled experiment. Other variables can affect the outcome of the experiment such as training using GPUs, allowing multi-threading on CPUs, using certain layers, etc. To mitigate our problems with reproducibility, we first make sure that the data is processed in the same order during training. Therefore, we save the data from the last experiment and to make sure the newer experiment follows the same order. If we allow the data to be shuffled, it can affect the performance due to how the model was exposed to the data. We also specify the float data type to be 32-bit since Python defaults to 64-bit. We try to avoid using 64-bit precision because the numbers produced by a GPU can vary significantly depending on the GPU architecture [11-13]. Controlling precision somewhat reduces differences due to computational noise even though technically it increases the amount of computational noise. We are currently developing more advanced techniques for preserving the efficiency of our training process while also maintaining the ability to reproduce models. In our poster presentation we will demonstrate these issues using some novel visualization tools, present several examples of the extent to which these issues influence research results on electroencephalography (EEG) and digital pathology experiments and introduce new ways to manage such computational issues. 

   more » « less