Random Notes
  • Introduction
  • Reading list
  • Theory
    • Index
      • Impossibility of Distributed Consensus with One Faulty Process
      • Time, Clocks, and the Ordering of Events in a Distributed System
      • Using Reasoning About Knowledge to analyze Distributed Systems
      • CAP Twelve Years Later: How the “Rules” Have Changed
      • A Note on Distributed Computing
  • Operating System
    • Index
  • Storage
    • Index
      • Tachyon: Reliable, Memory Speed Storage for Cluster Computing Frameworks
      • Exploiting Commutativity For Practical Fast Replication
      • Don’t Settle for Eventual: Scalable Causal Consistency for Wide-Area Storage with COPS
      • Building Consistent Transactions with Inconsistent Replication
      • Managing Update Conflicts in Bayou, a Weakly Connected Replicated Storage System
      • Spanner: Google's Globally-Distributed Database
      • Bigtable: A Distributed Storage System for Structured Data
      • The Google File System
      • Dynamo: Amazon’s Highly Available Key-value Store
      • Chord: A Scalable Peer-to-peer Lookup Service for Internet Applications
      • Replicated Data Consistency Explained Through Baseball
      • Session Guarantees for Weakly Consistent Replicated Data
      • Flat Datacenter Storage
      • Small Cache, Big Effect: Provable Load Balancing forRandomly Partitioned Cluster Services
      • DistCache: provable load balancing for large-scale storage systems with distributed caching
      • Short Summaries
  • Coordination
    • Index
      • Logical Physical Clocks and Consistent Snapshots in Globally Distributed Databases
      • Paxos made simple
      • ZooKeeper: Wait-free coordination for Internet-scale systems
      • Just Say NO to Paxos Overhead: Replacing Consensus with Network Ordering
      • Keeping CALM: When Distributed Consistency is Easy
      • In Search of an Understandable Consensus Algorithm
      • A comprehensive study of Convergent and Commutative Replicated Data Types
  • Fault Tolerance
    • Index
      • The Mystery Machine: End-to-end Performance Analysis of Large-scale Internet Services
      • Gray Failure: The Achilles’ Heel of Cloud-Scale Systems
      • Capturing and Enhancing In Situ System Observability for Failure Detection
      • Check before You Change: Preventing Correlated Failures in Service Updates
      • Efficient Scalable Thread-Safety-Violation Detection
      • REPT: Reverse Debugging of Failures in Deployed Software
      • Redundancy Does Not Imply Fault Tolerance
      • Fixed It For You:Protocol Repair Using Lineage Graphs
      • The Good, the Bad, and the Differences: Better Network Diagnostics with Differential Provenance
      • Lineage-driven Fault Injection
      • Short Summaries
  • Cloud Computing
    • Index
      • Improving MapReduce Performance in Heterogeneous Environments
      • CLARINET: WAN-Aware Optimization for Analytics Queries
      • MapReduce: Simplified Data Processing on Large Clusters
      • Dryad: Distributed Data-Parallel Programs from Sequential Building Blocks
      • Resource Management
      • Apache Hadoop YARN: Yet Another Resource Negotiator
      • Mesos: A Platform for Fine-Grained Resource Sharing in the Data Center
      • Dominant Resource Fairness: Fair Allocation of Multiple Resource Types
      • Large-scale cluster management at Google with Borg
      • MapReduce Online
      • Delay Scheduling: A Simple Technique for Achieving Locality and Fairness in Cluster Scheduling
      • Reining in the Outliers in Map-Reduce Clusters using Mantri
      • Effective Straggler Mitigation: Attack of the Clones
      • Resilient Distributed Datasets: A Fault-Tolerant Abstraction for In-Memory Cluster Computing
      • Discretized Streams: Fault-Tolerant Streaming Computation at Scale
      • Sparrow: Distributed, Low Latency Scheduling
      • Making Sense of Performance in Data Analytics Framework
      • Monotasks: Architecting for Performance Clarity in Data Analytics Frameworks
      • Drizzle: Fast and Adaptable Stream Processing at Scale
      • Naiad: A Timely Dataflow System
      • The Dataflow Model:A Practical Approach to Balancing Correctness, Latency, and Cost in Massive-Scale
      • Interruptible Tasks:Treating Memory Pressure AsInterrupts for Highly Scalable Data-Parallel Program
      • PACMan: Coordinated Memory Caching for Parallel Jobs
      • Multi-Resource Packing for Cluster Schedulers
      • Other interesting papers
  • Systems for ML
    • Index
      • A Berkeley View of Systems Challenges for AI
      • Tiresias: A GPU Cluster Managerfor Distributed Deep Learning
      • Gandiva: Introspective Cluster Scheduling for Deep Learning
      • Workshop papers
      • Hidden Technical Debt in Machine Learning Systems
      • Inference Systems
      • Parameter Servers and AllReduce
      • Federated Learning at Scale - Part I
      • Federated Learning at Scale - Part II
      • Learning From Non-IID data
      • Ray: A Distributed Framework for Emerging AI Applications
      • PipeDream: Generalized Pipeline Parallelism for DNN Training
      • DeepXplore: Automated Whitebox Testingof Deep Learning Systems
      • Distributed Machine Learning Misc.
  • ML for Systems
    • Index
      • Short Summaries
  • Machine Learning
    • Index
      • Deep Learning with Differential Privacy
      • Accelerating Deep Learning via Importance Sampling
      • A Few Useful Things to Know About Machine Learning
  • Video Analytics
    • Index
      • Scaling Video Analytics on Constrained Edge Nodes
      • Focus: Querying Large Video Datasets with Low Latency and Low Cost
      • NoScope: Optimizing Neural Network Queriesover Video at Scale
      • Live Video Analytics at Scale with Approximation and Delay-Tolerance
      • Chameleon: Scalable Adaptation of Video Analytics
      • End-to-end Learning of Action Detection from Frame Glimpses in Videos
      • Short Summaries
  • Networking
    • Index
      • Salsify: Low-Latency Network Video through Tighter Integration between a Video Codec and a Transport
      • Learning in situ: a randomized experiment in video streaming
      • Short Summaries
  • Serverless
    • Index
      • Serverless Computing: One Step Forward, Two Steps Back
      • Encoding, Fast and Slow: Low-Latency Video Processing Using Thousands of Tiny Threads
      • SAND: Towards High-Performance Serverless Computing
      • Pocket: Elastic Ephemeral Storage for Serverless Analytics
      • Fault-tolerant and Transactional Stateful Serverless Workflows
  • Resource Disaggregation
    • Index
  • Edge Computing
    • Index
  • Security/Privacy
    • Index
      • Differential Privacy
      • Honeycrisp: Large-Scale Differentially Private Aggregation Without a Trusted Core
      • Short Summaries
  • Misc.
    • Index
      • Rate Limiting
      • Load Balancing
      • Consistency Models in Distributed System
      • Managing Complexity
      • System Design
      • Deep Dive into the Spark Scheduler
      • The Actor Model
      • Python Global Interpreter Lock
      • About Research and PhD
Powered by GitBook
On this page
  • Motivation
  • Background
  • Focus
  • Comments:
  • References:

Was this helpful?

  1. Video Analytics
  2. Index

Focus: Querying Large Video Datasets with Low Latency and Low Cost

https://www.usenix.org/system/files/osdi18-hsieh.pdf

PreviousScaling Video Analytics on Constrained Edge NodesNextNoScope: Optimizing Neural Network Queriesover Video at Scale

Last updated 5 years ago

Was this helpful?

Motivation

Querying over large historical video datasets is an critical workload. Example queries include identifying video frames with objects of certain classes(e.g., cars or pedestrians). However, the state-of-the-art object detector(e.g., YOLO) requires approximately 200 hours to identify frames on a month-long traffic video.

Background

I really like section 2 of this paper. It provides some insights into my current project.

  • Feature Vector in CNN

The output of the last hidden layer can be considered as "representative features" of the input image.(i.e. the feature vector). It has been shown that if two images produce feature activation vectors with a small Euclidean separation, we can say that the higher levels of the neural network consider them to be similar.[1].

The above images show the six training images that produce feature vectors in the last hidden layer with the smallest Euclidean distance from the feature vector for the images in the first column. Notice that at the pixel level, the retrieved training images are generally not close in L2 to the query images in the first column. For example, the retrieved dogs and elephants appear in a variety of poses.

  • Specialized CNN

CNN specialization is a technique where the CNN are trained on a subset of a dataset specific to a particular context. Specialization simplifies the task of a CNN because specialized CNNs only need to consider a particular context. For example, differentiating object classes in any possible video is much more difficult than doing so in a traffic video, which is likely to contain far fewer object classes (e.g., cars, bicycles, pedestrians). As a result, specialized CNNs can be more accurate and smaller at the expense of generality.

  • Compression

Compression(e.g. layers and matrix pruning) is a set of techniques that can dramatically reduce the cost of inference at the expense of accuracy.(e.g. ResNet18 vs. ResNet152). Although cheap/compressed CNNs are generally less accurate than the original CNNs, the top-most output of the expensive CNNs for an object is often contained within the top-k classes output by the cheap CNN, for a small value of K.

Three key characteristics of real-world videos:

  • large portions of videos can be excluded

    • In the experiment datasets, an object class occurs in only 0.16% of the frames on average, and even the most frequent object class occurs in no more than 26%-78% of the frames. As a result, indexing frames using the object class is a promising approach to speed up queries.

  • Only a limited set of object classes occur in each video

    • Most video streams have a limited set of objects because each video has its own context. (e.g., traffic cameras can have automobiles, pedestrians or bikes, but not airplanes). 2% - 10% of the most frequent object classes cover over 95% of the objects in all video frames. This gives us an opportunity to train efficient CNNs specialized for these common classes.

  • Objects of the same class have similar feature vectors

    • Objects moving in the video often stay in frame for several seconds. Thus, we can find duplicate objects by using feature vectors and only classify one of them using a CNN. (and apply the same label to all duplicates).

Focus

The objective of Focus is to enable low-latency and low-cost querying over large historical datasets.

At ingest-time, Focus classifies objects in the incoming video frames and extracts their feature vectors. For its ingest, Focus uses highly compressed and specialized CNN (IT1). Focus then clusters objects based on their feature vectors (IT2) and assigns to each cluster the top K most likely classes these objects belong to (based on classification confidence of the ingest CNN) (IT3). It creates a top-K index, which maps each class to the set of object clusters (IT4). The top-K index is the output of Focus’ ingest time processing of videos.

At query-time, when the user queries for a certain class X (QT1), Focus retrieves the matching clusters from the top-K index (QT2), runs the centroids of the clusters through GT-CNN (QT3), and returns all frames from the clusters whose centroids were classified by expensive but accurate CNN as class X (QT4).

Trading off Ingest Cost and Query Latency

Focus automatically chooses the ingest CNN, its K, and specialization and clustering parameters to achieve the desired precision and recall targets. These choices also help Focus trade off between the work done at ingest-time and query-time. For instance, to save ingest work, Focus can select a cheaper ingest-time CNN, and then counteract the resultant loss in recall by using a higher K and running the expensive CNN on more objects at query time. (See 4.4 for more details). I found this part of the discussion very interesting.

Comments:

I like the first two sections of this paper as it provides substantial background and motivation for this work. However, I found that the paper could be more organized for sections 3-5. Moreover, it's not clear to me, based on the paper, how Focus creates ingest-time CNN based on the input CNN.

References:

[1] ImageNet Classification with Deep Convolutional Neural Networks - Krizhevsky et al.,

https://www.nvidia.cn/content/tesla/pdf/machine-learning/imagenet-classification-with-deep-convolutional-nn.pdf