skip to main content


Title: Less is More: How Fewer Results Improve Progressive Join Query Processing
With the requirements to enable data analytics and exploration interactively and efficiently, progressive data processing, especially progressive join, became essential to data science. Join queries are particularly challenging due to the correlation between input datasets which causes the results to be biased towards some join keys. Existing methods carefully control which parts of the input to process in order to improve the quality of progressive results. If the quality is not satisfactory, they will process more data to improve the result. In this paper, we propose an alternative approach that initially seems counter-intuitive but surprisingly works very well. After query processing, we intentionally report fewer results to the user with the goal of improving the quality. The key idea is that if the output is deviated from the correct distribution, we temporarily hide some results to correct the bias. As we process more data, the hidden results are inserted back until the full dataset is processed. The main challenge is that we do not know the correct output distribution while the progressive query is running. In this work, we formally define the progressive join problem with quality and progressive result rate constraints. We propose an input&output quality-aware progressive join framework (QPJ) that (1) provides input control that decides which parts of the input to process; (2) estimates the final result distribution progressively; (3) automat- ically controls the quality of the progressive output rate; and (4) combines input&output control to enable quality control of the progressive results. We compare QPJ with existing methods and show QPJ can provide the progressive output that can represent the final answer better than existing methods.  more » « less
Award ID(s):
2046236
NSF-PAR ID:
10438961
Author(s) / Creator(s):
;
Date Published:
Journal Name:
the 35th International Conference on on Scientific and Statistical Database Management, SSDBM 2023
Format(s):
Medium: X
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. With the requirements to enable data analytics and exploration interactively and efficiently, progressive data processing, especially progressive join, became essential to data science. Join queries are particularly challenging due to the correlation between input datasets which causes the results to be biased towards some join keys. Existing methods carefully control which parts of the input to process in order to improve the quality of progressive results. If the quality is not satisfactory, they will process more data to improve the result. In this paper, we propose an alternative approach that initially seems counter-intuitive but surprisingly works very well. After query processing, we intentionally report fewer results to the user with the goal of improving the quality. The key idea is that if the output is deviated from the correct distribution, we temporarily hide some results to correct the bias. As we process more data, the hidden results are inserted back until the full dataset is processed. The main challenge is that we do not know the correct output distribution while the progressive query is running. In this work, we formally define the progressive join problem with quality and progressive result rate constraints. We propose an input&output quality-aware progressive join framework (QPJ) that (1) provides input control that decides which parts of the input to process; (2) estimates the final result distribution progressively; (3) automatically controls the quality of the progressive output rate; and (4) combines input&output control to enable quality control of the progressive results. We compare QPJ with existing methods and show QPJ can provide the progressive output that can represent the final answer better than existing methods. 
    more » « less
  2. 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
  3. SkinnerDB uses reinforcement learning for reliable join ordering, exploiting an adaptive processing engine with specialized join algorithms and data structures. It maintains no data statistics and uses no cost or cardinality models. Also, it uses no training workloads nor does it try to link the current query to seemingly similar queries in the past. Instead, it uses reinforcement learning to learn optimal join orders from scratch during the execution of the current query. To that purpose, it divides the execution of a query into many small time slices. Different join orders are tried in different time slices. SkinnerDB merges result tuples generated according to different join orders until a complete query result is obtained. By measuring execution progress per time slice, it identifies promising join orders as execution proceeds. Along with SkinnerDB, we introduce a new quality criterion for query execution strategies. We upper-bound expected execution cost regret, i.e., the expected amount of execution cost wasted due to sub-optimal join order choices. SkinnerDB features multiple execution strategies that are optimized for that criterion. Some of them can be executed on top of existing database systems. For maximal performance, we introduce a customized execution engine, facilitating fast join order switching via specialized multi-way join algorithms and tuple representations. We experimentally compare SkinnerDB’s performance against various baselines, including MonetDB, Postgres, and adaptive processing methods. We consider various benchmarks, including the join order benchmark, TPC-H, and JCC-H, as well as benchmark variants with user-defined functions. Overall, the overheads of reliable join ordering are negligible compared to the performance impact of the occasional, catastrophic join order choice. 
    more » « less
  4. Abstract

    Long nanopore reads are advantageous in de novo genome assembly. However, nanopore reads usually have broad error distribution and high-error-rate subsequences. Existing error correction tools cannot correct nanopore reads efficiently and effectively. Most methods trim high-error-rate subsequences during error correction, which reduces both the length of the reads and contiguity of the final assembly. Here, we develop an error correction, and de novo assembly tool designed to overcome complex errors in nanopore reads. We propose an adaptive read selection and two-step progressive method to quickly correct nanopore reads to high accuracy. We introduce a two-stage assembler to utilize the full length of nanopore reads. Our tool achieves superior performance in both error correction and de novo assembling nanopore reads. It requires only 8122 hours to assemble a 35X coverage human genome and achieves a 2.47-fold improvement in NG50. Furthermore, our assembly of the human WERI cell line shows an NG50 of 22 Mbp. The high-quality assembly of nanopore reads can significantly reduce false positives in structure variation detection.

     
    more » « less
  5. null (Ed.)
    Nested queries are commonly used to express complex use-cases by connecting the output of a subquery as an input to the outer query block. However, their execution is highly time consuming. Researchers have proposed various algorithms and techniques that unnest subqueries to improve performance. Since this is a customized approach that needs high algorithmic and engineering efforts, it is largely not an open feature in most existing database systems. Our approach is general-purpose and GPU-acceleration based, aiming for high performance at a minimum development cost. We look into the major differences between nested and unnested query structures to identify their merits and limits for GPU processing. Furthermore, we focus on the nested approach that is algorithmically simple and rich in parallels, in relatively low space complexity, and generic in program structure. We create a new code generation framework that best fits GPU for the nested method. We also make several critical system optimizations including massive parallel scanning with indexing, effective vectorization to optimize join operations, exploiting cache locality for loops and efficient GPU memory management. We have implemented the proposed solutions in NestGPU, a GPU-based column-store database system that is GPU device independent. We have extensively evaluated and tested the system to show the effectiveness of our proposed methods. 
    more » « less