More Like this

1. SIESTA: Efficient Online Continual Learning with Sleep

   Harun, Md Yousuf; Gallardo, Jhair; Hayes, Tyler; Kemker, Ronald; Kanan, Christopher (November 2023, Transactions on machine learning research)

   In supervised continual learning, a deep neural network (DNN) is updated with an ever-growing data stream. Unlike the offline setting where data is shuffled, we cannot make any distributional assumptions about the data stream. Ideally, only one pass through the dataset is needed for computational efficiency. However, existing methods are inadequate and make many assumptions that cannot be made for real-world applications, while simultaneously failing to improve computational efficiency. In this paper, we propose a novel continual learning method, SIESTA based on wake/sleep framework for training, which is well aligned to the needs of on-device learning. The major goal of SIESTA is to advance compute efficient continual learning so that DNNs can be updated efficiently using far less time and energy. The principal innovations of SIESTA are: 1) rapid online updates using a rehearsal-free, backpropagation-free, and data-driven network update rule during its wake phase, and 2) expedited memory consolidation using a compute-restricted rehearsal policy during its sleep phase. For memory efficiency, SIESTA adapts latent rehearsal using memory indexing from REMIND. Compared to REMIND and prior arts, SIESTA is far more computationally efficient, enabling continual learning on ImageNet-1K in under 2 hours on a single GPU; moreover, in the augmentation-free setting it matches the performance of the offline learner, a milestone critical to driving adoption of continual learning in real-world applications. 

   more » « less
2. FedADMM: A federated primal-dual algorithm allowing partial participation

   Wang, Han; Anderson, James (December 2022, Proceedings of the IEEE 61st Conference on Decision and Control (CDC))

   Federated learning is a framework for distributed optimization that places emphasis on communication efficiency. In particular, it follows a client-server broadcast model and is appealing because of its ability to accommodate heterogene- ity in client compute and storage resources, non-i.i.d. data assumptions, and data privacy. Our contribution is to offer a new federated learning algorithm, FedADMM, for solving non-convex composite optimization problems with non-smooth regularizers. We prove the convergence of FedADMM for the case when not all clients are able to participate in a given communication round under a very general sampling model. 

   more » « less
3. Tensor relational algebra for distributed machine learning system design

   https://doi.org/10.14778/3457390.3457399  

   Yuan, Binhang; Jankov, Dimitrije; Zou, Jia; Tang, Yuxin; Bourgeois, Daniel; Jermaine, Chris (April 2021, Proceedings of the VLDB Endowment)

   We consider the question: what is the abstraction that should be implemented by the computational engine of a machine learning system? Current machine learning systems typically push whole tensors through a series of compute kernels such as matrix multiplications or activation functions, where each kernel runs on an AI accelerator (ASIC) such as a GPU. This implementation abstraction provides little built-in support for ML systems to scale past a single machine, or for handling large models with matrices or tensors that do not easily fit into the RAM of an ASIC. In this paper, we present an alternative implementation abstraction called the tensor relational algebra (TRA). The TRA is a set-based algebra based on the relational algebra. Expressions in the TRA operate over binary tensor relations, where keys are multi-dimensional arrays and values are tensors. The TRA is easily executed with high efficiency in a parallel or distributed environment, and amenable to automatic optimization. Our empirical study shows that the optimized TRA-based back-end can significantly outperform alternatives for running ML workflows in distributed clusters. 

   more » « less
4. Hoplite: efficient and fault-tolerant collective communication for task-based distributed systems

   https://doi.org/10.1145/3452296.3472897  

   Zhuang, Siyuan; Li, Zhuohan; Zhuo, Danyang; Wang, Stephanie; Liang, Eric; Nishihara, Robert; Moritz, Philipp; Stoica, Ion (August 2021, SIGCOMM'21: Proceedings of the 2021 ACM SIGCOMM 2021 Conference)

   Task-based distributed frameworks (e.g., Ray, Dask, Hydro) have become increasingly popular for distributed applications that contain asynchronous and dynamic workloads, including asynchronous gradient descent, reinforcement learning, and model serving. As more data-intensive applications move to run on top of task-based systems, collective communication efficiency has become an important problem. Unfortunately, traditional collective communication libraries (e.g., MPI, Horovod, NCCL) are an ill fit, because they require the communication schedule to be known before runtime and they do not provide fault tolerance. We design and implement Hoplite, an efficient and fault-tolerant collective communication layer for task-based distributed systems. Our key technique is to compute data transfer schedules on the fly and execute the schedules efficiently through fine-grained pipelining. At the same time, when a task fails, the data transfer schedule adapts quickly to allow other tasks to keep making progress. We apply Hoplite to a popular task-based distributed framework, Ray. We show that Hoplite speeds up asynchronous stochastic gradient descent, reinforcement learning, and serving an ensemble of machine learning models that are difficult to execute efficiently with traditional collective communication by up to 7.8x, 3.9x, and 3.3x, respectively. 

   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