Showing 1–18 of 18 results for author: Mattson, P

Introducing v0.5 of the AI Safety Benchmark from MLCommons

Authors: Bertie Vidgen, Adarsh Agrawal, Ahmed M. Ahmed, Victor Akinwande, Namir Al-Nuaimi, Najla Alfaraj, Elie Alhajjar, Lora Aroyo, Trupti Bavalatti, Max Bartolo, Borhane Blili-Hamelin, Kurt Bollacker, Rishi Bomassani, Marisa Ferrara Boston, Siméon Campos, Kal Chakra, Canyu Chen, Cody Coleman, Zacharie Delpierre Coudert, Leon Derczynski, Debojyoti Dutta, Ian Eisenberg, James Ezick, Heather Frase, Brian Fuller , et al. (75 additional authors not shown)

Abstract: This paper introduces v0.5 of the AI Safety Benchmark, which has been created by the MLCommons AI Safety Working Group. The AI Safety Benchmark has been designed to assess the safety risks of AI systems that use chat-tuned language models. We introduce a principled approach to specifying and constructing the benchmark, which for v0.5 covers only a single use case (an adult chatting to a general-pu… ▽ More This paper introduces v0.5 of the AI Safety Benchmark, which has been created by the MLCommons AI Safety Working Group. The AI Safety Benchmark has been designed to assess the safety risks of AI systems that use chat-tuned language models. We introduce a principled approach to specifying and constructing the benchmark, which for v0.5 covers only a single use case (an adult chatting to a general-purpose assistant in English), and a limited set of personas (i.e., typical users, malicious users, and vulnerable users). We created a new taxonomy of 13 hazard categories, of which 7 have tests in the v0.5 benchmark. We plan to release version 1.0 of the AI Safety Benchmark by the end of 2024. The v1.0 benchmark will provide meaningful insights into the safety of AI systems. However, the v0.5 benchmark should not be used to assess the safety of AI systems. We have sought to fully document the limitations, flaws, and challenges of v0.5. This release of v0.5 of the AI Safety Benchmark includes (1) a principled approach to specifying and constructing the benchmark, which comprises use cases, types of systems under test (SUTs), language and context, personas, tests, and test items; (2) a taxonomy of 13 hazard categories with definitions and subcategories; (3) tests for seven of the hazard categories, each comprising a unique set of test items, i.e., prompts. There are 43,090 test items in total, which we created with templates; (4) a grading system for AI systems against the benchmark; (5) an openly available platform, and downloadable tool, called ModelBench that can be used to evaluate the safety of AI systems on the benchmark; (6) an example evaluation report which benchmarks the performance of over a dozen openly available chat-tuned language models; (7) a test specification for the benchmark. △ Less

Submitted 13 May, 2024; v1 submitted 18 April, 2024; originally announced April 2024.

Croissant: A Metadata Format for ML-Ready Datasets

Authors: Mubashara Akhtar, Omar Benjelloun, Costanza Conforti, Pieter Gijsbers, Joan Giner-Miguelez, Nitisha Jain, Michael Kuchnik, Quentin Lhoest, Pierre Marcenac, Manil Maskey, Peter Mattson, Luis Oala, Pierre Ruyssen, Rajat Shinde, Elena Simperl, Goeffry Thomas, Slava Tykhonov, Joaquin Vanschoren, Jos van der Velde, Steffen Vogler, Carole-Jean Wu

Abstract: Data is a critical resource for Machine Learning (ML), yet working with data remains a key friction point. This paper introduces Croissant, a metadata format for datasets that simplifies how data is used by ML tools and frameworks. Croissant makes datasets more discoverable, portable and interoperable, thereby addressing significant challenges in ML data management and responsible AI. Croissant is… ▽ More Data is a critical resource for Machine Learning (ML), yet working with data remains a key friction point. This paper introduces Croissant, a metadata format for datasets that simplifies how data is used by ML tools and frameworks. Croissant makes datasets more discoverable, portable and interoperable, thereby addressing significant challenges in ML data management and responsible AI. Croissant is already supported by several popular dataset repositories, spanning hundreds of thousands of datasets, ready to be loaded into the most popular ML frameworks. △ Less

Submitted 30 May, 2024; v1 submitted 28 March, 2024; originally announced March 2024.

Comments: Published in Proceedings of ACM SIGMOD/PODS'24 Data Management for End-to-End Machine Learning (DEEM) Workshop https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3650203.3663326

DMLR: Data-centric Machine Learning Research -- Past, Present and Future

Authors: Luis Oala, Manil Maskey, Lilith Bat-Leah, Alicia Parrish, Nezihe Merve Gürel, Tzu-Sheng Kuo, Yang Liu, Rotem Dror, Danilo Brajovic, Xiaozhe Yao, Max Bartolo, William A Gaviria Rojas, Ryan Hileman, Rainier Aliment, Michael W. Mahoney, Meg Risdal, Matthew Lease, Wojciech Samek, Debojyoti Dutta, Curtis G Northcutt, Cody Coleman, Braden Hancock, Bernard Koch, Girmaw Abebe Tadesse, Bojan Karlaš , et al. (13 additional authors not shown)

Abstract: Drawing from discussions at the inaugural DMLR workshop at ICML 2023 and meetings prior, in this report we outline the relevance of community engagement and infrastructure development for the creation of next-generation public datasets that will advance machine learning science. We chart a path forward as a collective effort to sustain the creation and maintenance of these datasets and methods tow… ▽ More Drawing from discussions at the inaugural DMLR workshop at ICML 2023 and meetings prior, in this report we outline the relevance of community engagement and infrastructure development for the creation of next-generation public datasets that will advance machine learning science. We chart a path forward as a collective effort to sustain the creation and maintenance of these datasets and methods towards positive scientific, societal and business impact. △ Less

Submitted 1 June, 2024; v1 submitted 21 November, 2023; originally announced November 2023.

Comments: Published in the Journal of Data-centric Machine Learning Research (DMLR) at https://data.mlr.press/assets/pdf/v01-5.pdf

Benchmarking Neural Network Training Algorithms

Authors: George E. Dahl, Frank Schneider, Zachary Nado, Naman Agarwal, Chandramouli Shama Sastry, Philipp Hennig, Sourabh Medapati, Runa Eschenhagen, Priya Kasimbeg, Daniel Suo, Juhan Bae, Justin Gilmer, Abel L. Peirson, Bilal Khan, Rohan Anil, Mike Rabbat, Shankar Krishnan, Daniel Snider, Ehsan Amid, Kongtao Chen, Chris J. Maddison, Rakshith Vasudev, Michal Badura, Ankush Garg, Peter Mattson

Abstract: Training algorithms, broadly construed, are an essential part of every deep learning pipeline. Training algorithm improvements that speed up training across a wide variety of workloads (e.g., better update rules, tuning protocols, learning rate schedules, or data selection schemes) could save time, save computational resources, and lead to better, more accurate, models. Unfortunately, as a communi… ▽ More Training algorithms, broadly construed, are an essential part of every deep learning pipeline. Training algorithm improvements that speed up training across a wide variety of workloads (e.g., better update rules, tuning protocols, learning rate schedules, or data selection schemes) could save time, save computational resources, and lead to better, more accurate, models. Unfortunately, as a community, we are currently unable to reliably identify training algorithm improvements, or even determine the state-of-the-art training algorithm. In this work, using concrete experiments, we argue that real progress in speeding up training requires new benchmarks that resolve three basic challenges faced by empirical comparisons of training algorithms: (1) how to decide when training is complete and precisely measure training time, (2) how to handle the sensitivity of measurements to exact workload details, and (3) how to fairly compare algorithms that require hyperparameter tuning. In order to address these challenges, we introduce a new, competitive, time-to-result benchmark using multiple workloads running on fixed hardware, the AlgoPerf: Training Algorithms benchmark. Our benchmark includes a set of workload variants that make it possible to detect benchmark submissions that are more robust to workload changes than current widely-used methods. Finally, we evaluate baseline submissions constructed using various optimizers that represent current practice, as well as other optimizers that have recently received attention in the literature. These baseline results collectively demonstrate the feasibility of our benchmark, show that non-trivial gaps between methods exist, and set a provisional state-of-the-art for future benchmark submissions to try and surpass. △ Less

Submitted 12 June, 2023; originally announced June 2023.

Comments: 102 pages, 8 figures, 41 tables

Observer-Feedback-Feedforward Controller Structures in Reinforcement Learning

Authors: Ruoqi Zhang, Per Mattson, Torbjörn Wigren

Abstract: The paper proposes the use of structured neural networks for reinforcement learning based nonlinear adaptive control. The focus is on partially observable systems, with separate neural networks for the state and feedforward observer and the state feedback and feedforward controller. The observer dynamics are modelled by recurrent neural networks while a standard network is used for the controller.… ▽ More The paper proposes the use of structured neural networks for reinforcement learning based nonlinear adaptive control. The focus is on partially observable systems, with separate neural networks for the state and feedforward observer and the state feedback and feedforward controller. The observer dynamics are modelled by recurrent neural networks while a standard network is used for the controller. As discussed in the paper, this leads to a separation of the observer dynamics to the recurrent neural network part, and the state feedback to the feedback and feedforward network. The structured approach reduces the computational complexity and gives the reinforcement learning based controller an {\em understandable} structure as compared to when one single neural network is used. As shown by simulation the proposed structure has the additional and main advantage that the training becomes significantly faster. Two ways to include feedforward structure are presented, one related to state feedback control and one related to classical feedforward control. The latter method introduces further structure with a separate recurrent neural network that processes only the measured disturbance. When evaluated with simulation on a nonlinear cascaded double tank process, the method with most structure performs the best, with excellent feedforward disturbance rejection gains. △ Less

Submitted 20 April, 2023; originally announced April 2023.

Comments: IFAC WC 2023

Understanding metric-related pitfalls in image analysis validation

Authors: Annika Reinke, Minu D. Tizabi, Michael Baumgartner, Matthias Eisenmann, Doreen Heckmann-Nötzel, A. Emre Kavur, Tim Rädsch, Carole H. Sudre, Laura Acion, Michela Antonelli, Tal Arbel, Spyridon Bakas, Arriel Benis, Matthew Blaschko, Florian Buettner, M. Jorge Cardoso, Veronika Cheplygina, Jianxu Chen, Evangelia Christodoulou, Beth A. Cimini, Gary S. Collins, Keyvan Farahani, Luciana Ferrer, Adrian Galdran, Bram van Ginneken , et al. (53 additional authors not shown)

Abstract: Validation metrics are key for the reliable tracking of scientific progress and for bridging the current chasm between artificial intelligence (AI) research and its translation into practice. However, increasing evidence shows that particularly in image analysis, metrics are often chosen inadequately in relation to the underlying research problem. This could be attributed to a lack of accessibilit… ▽ More Validation metrics are key for the reliable tracking of scientific progress and for bridging the current chasm between artificial intelligence (AI) research and its translation into practice. However, increasing evidence shows that particularly in image analysis, metrics are often chosen inadequately in relation to the underlying research problem. This could be attributed to a lack of accessibility of metric-related knowledge: While taking into account the individual strengths, weaknesses, and limitations of validation metrics is a critical prerequisite to making educated choices, the relevant knowledge is currently scattered and poorly accessible to individual researchers. Based on a multi-stage Delphi process conducted by a multidisciplinary expert consortium as well as extensive community feedback, the present work provides the first reliable and comprehensive common point of access to information on pitfalls related to validation metrics in image analysis. Focusing on biomedical image analysis but with the potential of transfer to other fields, the addressed pitfalls generalize across application domains and are categorized according to a newly created, domain-agnostic taxonomy. To facilitate comprehension, illustrations and specific examples accompany each pitfall. As a structured body of information accessible to researchers of all levels of expertise, this work enhances global comprehension of a key topic in image analysis validation. △ Less

Submitted 23 February, 2024; v1 submitted 3 February, 2023; originally announced February 2023.

Comments: Shared first authors: Annika Reinke and Minu D. Tizabi; shared senior authors: Lena Maier-Hein and Paul F. Jäger. Published in Nature Methods. arXiv admin note: text overlap with arXiv:2206.01653

Journal ref: Nature methods, 1-13 (2024)

DataPerf: Benchmarks for Data-Centric AI Development

Authors: Mark Mazumder, Colby Banbury, Xiaozhe Yao, Bojan Karlaš, William Gaviria Rojas, Sudnya Diamos, Greg Diamos, Lynn He, Alicia Parrish, Hannah Rose Kirk, Jessica Quaye, Charvi Rastogi, Douwe Kiela, David Jurado, David Kanter, Rafael Mosquera, Juan Ciro, Lora Aroyo, Bilge Acun, Lingjiao Chen, Mehul Smriti Raje, Max Bartolo, Sabri Eyuboglu, Amirata Ghorbani, Emmett Goodman , et al. (20 additional authors not shown)

Abstract: Machine learning research has long focused on models rather than datasets, and prominent datasets are used for common ML tasks without regard to the breadth, difficulty, and faithfulness of the underlying problems. Neglecting the fundamental importance of data has given rise to inaccuracy, bias, and fragility in real-world applications, and research is hindered by saturation across existing datase… ▽ More Machine learning research has long focused on models rather than datasets, and prominent datasets are used for common ML tasks without regard to the breadth, difficulty, and faithfulness of the underlying problems. Neglecting the fundamental importance of data has given rise to inaccuracy, bias, and fragility in real-world applications, and research is hindered by saturation across existing dataset benchmarks. In response, we present DataPerf, a community-led benchmark suite for evaluating ML datasets and data-centric algorithms. We aim to foster innovation in data-centric AI through competition, comparability, and reproducibility. We enable the ML community to iterate on datasets, instead of just architectures, and we provide an open, online platform with multiple rounds of challenges to support this iterative development. The first iteration of DataPerf contains five benchmarks covering a wide spectrum of data-centric techniques, tasks, and modalities in vision, speech, acquisition, debugging, and diffusion prompting, and we support hosting new contributed benchmarks from the community. The benchmarks, online evaluation platform, and baseline implementations are open source, and the MLCommons Association will maintain DataPerf to ensure long-term benefits to academia and industry. △ Less

Submitted 13 October, 2023; v1 submitted 20 July, 2022; originally announced July 2022.

Comments: NeurIPS 2023 Datasets and Benchmarks Track

Metrics reloaded: Recommendations for image analysis validation

Authors: Lena Maier-Hein, Annika Reinke, Patrick Godau, Minu D. Tizabi, Florian Buettner, Evangelia Christodoulou, Ben Glocker, Fabian Isensee, Jens Kleesiek, Michal Kozubek, Mauricio Reyes, Michael A. Riegler, Manuel Wiesenfarth, A. Emre Kavur, Carole H. Sudre, Michael Baumgartner, Matthias Eisenmann, Doreen Heckmann-Nötzel, Tim Rädsch, Laura Acion, Michela Antonelli, Tal Arbel, Spyridon Bakas, Arriel Benis, Matthew Blaschko , et al. (49 additional authors not shown)

Abstract: Increasing evidence shows that flaws in machine learning (ML) algorithm validation are an underestimated global problem. Particularly in automatic biomedical image analysis, chosen performance metrics often do not reflect the domain interest, thus failing to adequately measure scientific progress and hindering translation of ML techniques into practice. To overcome this, our large international ex… ▽ More Increasing evidence shows that flaws in machine learning (ML) algorithm validation are an underestimated global problem. Particularly in automatic biomedical image analysis, chosen performance metrics often do not reflect the domain interest, thus failing to adequately measure scientific progress and hindering translation of ML techniques into practice. To overcome this, our large international expert consortium created Metrics Reloaded, a comprehensive framework guiding researchers in the problem-aware selection of metrics. Following the convergence of ML methodology across application domains, Metrics Reloaded fosters the convergence of validation methodology. The framework was developed in a multi-stage Delphi process and is based on the novel concept of a problem fingerprint - a structured representation of the given problem that captures all aspects that are relevant for metric selection, from the domain interest to the properties of the target structure(s), data set and algorithm output. Based on the problem fingerprint, users are guided through the process of choosing and applying appropriate validation metrics while being made aware of potential pitfalls. Metrics Reloaded targets image analysis problems that can be interpreted as a classification task at image, object or pixel level, namely image-level classification, object detection, semantic segmentation, and instance segmentation tasks. To improve the user experience, we implemented the framework in the Metrics Reloaded online tool, which also provides a point of access to explore weaknesses, strengths and specific recommendations for the most common validation metrics. The broad applicability of our framework across domains is demonstrated by an instantiation for various biological and medical image analysis use cases. △ Less

Submitted 23 February, 2024; v1 submitted 3 June, 2022; originally announced June 2022.

Comments: Shared first authors: Lena Maier-Hein, Annika Reinke. arXiv admin note: substantial text overlap with arXiv:2104.05642 Published in Nature Methods

Journal ref: Nature methods, 1-18 (2024)

Dynatask: A Framework for Creating Dynamic AI Benchmark Tasks

Authors: Tristan Thrush, Kushal Tirumala, Anmol Gupta, Max Bartolo, Pedro Rodriguez, Tariq Kane, William Gaviria Rojas, Peter Mattson, Adina Williams, Douwe Kiela

Abstract: We introduce Dynatask: an open source system for setting up custom NLP tasks that aims to greatly lower the technical knowledge and effort required for hosting and evaluating state-of-the-art NLP models, as well as for conducting model in the loop data collection with crowdworkers. Dynatask is integrated with Dynabench, a research platform for rethinking benchmarking in AI that facilitates human a… ▽ More We introduce Dynatask: an open source system for setting up custom NLP tasks that aims to greatly lower the technical knowledge and effort required for hosting and evaluating state-of-the-art NLP models, as well as for conducting model in the loop data collection with crowdworkers. Dynatask is integrated with Dynabench, a research platform for rethinking benchmarking in AI that facilitates human and model in the loop data collection and evaluation. To create a task, users only need to write a short task configuration file from which the relevant web interfaces and model hosting infrastructure are automatically generated. The system is available at https://dynabench.org/ and the full library can be found at https://github.com/facebookresearch/dynabench. △ Less

Submitted 4 April, 2022; originally announced April 2022.

Comments: ACL System Demos 2022

MLPerf HPC: A Holistic Benchmark Suite for Scientific Machine Learning on HPC Systems

Authors: Steven Farrell, Murali Emani, Jacob Balma, Lukas Drescher, Aleksandr Drozd, Andreas Fink, Geoffrey Fox, David Kanter, Thorsten Kurth, Peter Mattson, Dawei Mu, Amit Ruhela, Kento Sato, Koichi Shirahata, Tsuguchika Tabaru, Aristeidis Tsaris, Jan Balewski, Ben Cumming, Takumi Danjo, Jens Domke, Takaaki Fukai, Naoto Fukumoto, Tatsuya Fukushi, Balazs Gerofi, Takumi Honda , et al. (18 additional authors not shown)

Abstract: Scientific communities are increasingly adopting machine learning and deep learning models in their applications to accelerate scientific insights. High performance computing systems are pushing the frontiers of performance with a rich diversity of hardware resources and massive scale-out capabilities. There is a critical need to understand fair and effective benchmarking of machine learning appli… ▽ More Scientific communities are increasingly adopting machine learning and deep learning models in their applications to accelerate scientific insights. High performance computing systems are pushing the frontiers of performance with a rich diversity of hardware resources and massive scale-out capabilities. There is a critical need to understand fair and effective benchmarking of machine learning applications that are representative of real-world scientific use cases. MLPerf is a community-driven standard to benchmark machine learning workloads, focusing on end-to-end performance metrics. In this paper, we introduce MLPerf HPC, a benchmark suite of large-scale scientific machine learning training applications driven by the MLCommons Association. We present the results from the first submission round, including a diverse set of some of the world's largest HPC systems. We develop a systematic framework for their joint analysis and compare them in terms of data staging, algorithmic convergence, and compute performance. As a result, we gain a quantitative understanding of optimizations on different subsystems such as staging and on-node loading of data, compute-unit utilization, and communication scheduling, enabling overall $>10 \times$ (end-to-end) performance improvements through system scaling. Notably, our analysis shows a scale-dependent interplay between the dataset size, a system's memory hierarchy, and training convergence that underlines the importance of near-compute storage. To overcome the data-parallel scalability challenge at large batch sizes, we discuss specific learning techniques and hybrid data-and-model parallelism that are effective on large systems. We conclude by characterizing each benchmark with respect to low-level memory, I/O, and network behavior to parameterize extended roofline performance models in future rounds. △ Less

Submitted 26 October, 2021; v1 submitted 21 October, 2021; originally announced October 2021.

MedPerf: Open Benchmarking Platform for Medical Artificial Intelligence using Federated Evaluation

Authors: Alexandros Karargyris, Renato Umeton, Micah J. Sheller, Alejandro Aristizabal, Johnu George, Srini Bala, Daniel J. Beutel, Victor Bittorf, Akshay Chaudhari, Alexander Chowdhury, Cody Coleman, Bala Desinghu, Gregory Diamos, Debo Dutta, Diane Feddema, Grigori Fursin, Junyi Guo, Xinyuan Huang, David Kanter, Satyananda Kashyap, Nicholas Lane, Indranil Mallick, Pietro Mascagni, Virendra Mehta, Vivek Natarajan , et al. (17 additional authors not shown)

Abstract: Medical AI has tremendous potential to advance healthcare by supporting the evidence-based practice of medicine, personalizing patient treatment, reducing costs, and improving provider and patient experience. We argue that unlocking this potential requires a systematic way to measure the performance of medical AI models on large-scale heterogeneous data. To meet this need, we are building MedPerf,… ▽ More Medical AI has tremendous potential to advance healthcare by supporting the evidence-based practice of medicine, personalizing patient treatment, reducing costs, and improving provider and patient experience. We argue that unlocking this potential requires a systematic way to measure the performance of medical AI models on large-scale heterogeneous data. To meet this need, we are building MedPerf, an open framework for benchmarking machine learning in the medical domain. MedPerf will enable federated evaluation in which models are securely distributed to different facilities for evaluation, thereby empowering healthcare organizations to assess and verify the performance of AI models in an efficient and human-supervised process, while prioritizing privacy. We describe the current challenges healthcare and AI communities face, the need for an open platform, the design philosophy of MedPerf, its current implementation status, and our roadmap. We call for researchers and organizations to join us in creating the MedPerf open benchmarking platform. △ Less

Submitted 28 December, 2021; v1 submitted 29 September, 2021; originally announced October 2021.

Common Limitations of Image Processing Metrics: A Picture Story

Authors: Annika Reinke, Minu D. Tizabi, Carole H. Sudre, Matthias Eisenmann, Tim Rädsch, Michael Baumgartner, Laura Acion, Michela Antonelli, Tal Arbel, Spyridon Bakas, Peter Bankhead, Arriel Benis, Matthew Blaschko, Florian Buettner, M. Jorge Cardoso, Jianxu Chen, Veronika Cheplygina, Evangelia Christodoulou, Beth Cimini, Gary S. Collins, Sandy Engelhardt, Keyvan Farahani, Luciana Ferrer, Adrian Galdran, Bram van Ginneken , et al. (68 additional authors not shown)

Abstract: While the importance of automatic image analysis is continuously increasing, recent meta-research revealed major flaws with respect to algorithm validation. Performance metrics are particularly key for meaningful, objective, and transparent performance assessment and validation of the used automatic algorithms, but relatively little attention has been given to the practical pitfalls when using spe… ▽ More While the importance of automatic image analysis is continuously increasing, recent meta-research revealed major flaws with respect to algorithm validation. Performance metrics are particularly key for meaningful, objective, and transparent performance assessment and validation of the used automatic algorithms, but relatively little attention has been given to the practical pitfalls when using specific metrics for a given image analysis task. These are typically related to (1) the disregard of inherent metric properties, such as the behaviour in the presence of class imbalance or small target structures, (2) the disregard of inherent data set properties, such as the non-independence of the test cases, and (3) the disregard of the actual biomedical domain interest that the metrics should reflect. This living dynamically document has the purpose to illustrate important limitations of performance metrics commonly applied in the field of image analysis. In this context, it focuses on biomedical image analysis problems that can be phrased as image-level classification, semantic segmentation, instance segmentation, or object detection task. The current version is based on a Delphi process on metrics conducted by an international consortium of image analysis experts from more than 60 institutions worldwide. △ Less

Submitted 6 December, 2023; v1 submitted 12 April, 2021; originally announced April 2021.

Comments: Shared first authors: Annika Reinke and Minu D. Tizabi. This is a dynamic paper on limitations of commonly used metrics. It discusses metrics for image-level classification, semantic and instance segmentation, and object detection. For missing use cases, comments or questions, please contact [email protected]. Substantial contributions to this document will be acknowledged with a co-authorship

GaNDLF: A Generally Nuanced Deep Learning Framework for Scalable End-to-End Clinical Workflows in Medical Imaging

Authors: Sarthak Pati, Siddhesh P. Thakur, İbrahim Ethem Hamamcı, Ujjwal Baid, Bhakti Baheti, Megh Bhalerao, Orhun Güley, Sofia Mouchtaris, David Lang, Spyridon Thermos, Karol Gotkowski, Camila González, Caleb Grenko, Alexander Getka, Brandon Edwards, Micah Sheller, Junwen Wu, Deepthi Karkada, Ravi Panchumarthy, Vinayak Ahluwalia, Chunrui Zou, Vishnu Bashyam, Yuemeng Li, Babak Haghighi, Rhea Chitalia , et al. (17 additional authors not shown)

Abstract: Deep Learning (DL) has the potential to optimize machine learning in both the scientific and clinical communities. However, greater expertise is required to develop DL algorithms, and the variability of implementations hinders their reproducibility, translation, and deployment. Here we present the community-driven Generally Nuanced Deep Learning Framework (GaNDLF), with the goal of lowering these… ▽ More Deep Learning (DL) has the potential to optimize machine learning in both the scientific and clinical communities. However, greater expertise is required to develop DL algorithms, and the variability of implementations hinders their reproducibility, translation, and deployment. Here we present the community-driven Generally Nuanced Deep Learning Framework (GaNDLF), with the goal of lowering these barriers. GaNDLF makes the mechanism of DL development, training, and inference more stable, reproducible, interpretable, and scalable, without requiring an extensive technical background. GaNDLF aims to provide an end-to-end solution for all DL-related tasks in computational precision medicine. We demonstrate the ability of GaNDLF to analyze both radiology and histology images, with built-in support for k-fold cross-validation, data augmentation, multiple modalities and output classes. Our quantitative performance evaluation on numerous use cases, anatomies, and computational tasks supports GaNDLF as a robust application framework for deployment in clinical workflows. △ Less

Submitted 16 May, 2023; v1 submitted 25 February, 2021; originally announced March 2021.

Comments: Deep Learning, Framework, Segmentation, Regression, Classification, Cross-validation, Data augmentation, Deployment, Clinical, Workflows

Journal ref: Commun Eng 2, 23 (2023)

Data Engineering for Everyone

Authors: Vijay Janapa Reddi, Greg Diamos, Pete Warden, Peter Mattson, David Kanter

Abstract: Data engineering is one of the fastest-growing fields within machine learning (ML). As ML becomes more common, the appetite for data grows more ravenous. But ML requires more data than individual teams of data engineers can readily produce, which presents a severe challenge to ML deployment at scale. Much like the software-engineering revolution, where mass adoption of open-source software replace… ▽ More Data engineering is one of the fastest-growing fields within machine learning (ML). As ML becomes more common, the appetite for data grows more ravenous. But ML requires more data than individual teams of data engineers can readily produce, which presents a severe challenge to ML deployment at scale. Much like the software-engineering revolution, where mass adoption of open-source software replaced the closed, in-house development model for infrastructure code, there is a growing need to enable rapid development and open contribution to massive machine learning data sets. This article shows that open-source data sets are the rocket fuel for research and innovation at even some of the largest AI organizations. Our analysis of nearly 2000 research publications from Facebook, Google and Microsoft over the past five years shows the widespread use and adoption of open data sets. Open data sets that are easily accessible to the public are vital to accelerating ML innovation for everyone. But such open resources are scarce in the wild. So, what if we are able to accelerate data-set creation via automatic data set generation tools? △ Less

Submitted 22 February, 2021; originally announced February 2021.

MLPerf Mobile Inference Benchmark

Authors: Vijay Janapa Reddi, David Kanter, Peter Mattson, Jared Duke, Thai Nguyen, Ramesh Chukka, Ken Shiring, Koan-Sin Tan, Mark Charlebois, William Chou, Mostafa El-Khamy, Jungwook Hong, Tom St. John, Cindy Trinh, Michael Buch, Mark Mazumder, Relia Markovic, Thomas Atta, Fatih Cakir, Masoud Charkhabi, Xiaodong Chen, Cheng-Ming Chiang, Dave Dexter, Terry Heo, Gunther Schmuelling , et al. (2 additional authors not shown)

Abstract: This paper presents the first industry-standard open-source machine learning (ML) benchmark to allow perfor mance and accuracy evaluation of mobile devices with different AI chips and software stacks. The benchmark draws from the expertise of leading mobile-SoC vendors, ML-framework providers, and model producers. It comprises a suite of models that operate with standard data sets, quality metrics… ▽ More This paper presents the first industry-standard open-source machine learning (ML) benchmark to allow perfor mance and accuracy evaluation of mobile devices with different AI chips and software stacks. The benchmark draws from the expertise of leading mobile-SoC vendors, ML-framework providers, and model producers. It comprises a suite of models that operate with standard data sets, quality metrics and run rules. We describe the design and implementation of this domain-specific ML benchmark. The current benchmark version comes as a mobile app for different computer vision and natural language processing tasks. The benchmark also supports non-smartphone devices, such as laptops and mobile PCs. Benchmark results from the first two rounds reveal the overwhelming complexity of the underlying mobile ML system stack, emphasizing the need for transparency in mobile ML performance analysis. The results also show that the strides being made all through the ML stack improve performance. Within six months, offline throughput improved by 3x, while latency reduced by as much as 12x. ML is an evolving field with changing use cases, models, data sets and quality targets. MLPerf Mobile will evolve and serve as an open-source community framework to guide research and innovation for mobile AI. △ Less

Submitted 6 April, 2022; v1 submitted 3 December, 2020; originally announced December 2020.

MLPerf Inference Benchmark

Authors: Vijay Janapa Reddi, Christine Cheng, David Kanter, Peter Mattson, Guenther Schmuelling, Carole-Jean Wu, Brian Anderson, Maximilien Breughe, Mark Charlebois, William Chou, Ramesh Chukka, Cody Coleman, Sam Davis, Pan Deng, Greg Diamos, Jared Duke, Dave Fick, J. Scott Gardner, Itay Hubara, Sachin Idgunji, Thomas B. Jablin, Jeff Jiao, Tom St. John, Pankaj Kanwar, David Lee , et al. (22 additional authors not shown)

Abstract: Machine-learning (ML) hardware and software system demand is burgeoning. Driven by ML applications, the number of different ML inference systems has exploded. Over 100 organizations are building ML inference chips, and the systems that incorporate existing models span at least three orders of magnitude in power consumption and five orders of magnitude in performance; they range from embedded devic… ▽ More Machine-learning (ML) hardware and software system demand is burgeoning. Driven by ML applications, the number of different ML inference systems has exploded. Over 100 organizations are building ML inference chips, and the systems that incorporate existing models span at least three orders of magnitude in power consumption and five orders of magnitude in performance; they range from embedded devices to data-center solutions. Fueling the hardware are a dozen or more software frameworks and libraries. The myriad combinations of ML hardware and ML software make assessing ML-system performance in an architecture-neutral, representative, and reproducible manner challenging. There is a clear need for industry-wide standard ML benchmarking and evaluation criteria. MLPerf Inference answers that call. In this paper, we present our benchmarking method for evaluating ML inference systems. Driven by more than 30 organizations as well as more than 200 ML engineers and practitioners, MLPerf prescribes a set of rules and best practices to ensure comparability across systems with wildly differing architectures. The first call for submissions garnered more than 600 reproducible inference-performance measurements from 14 organizations, representing over 30 systems that showcase a wide range of capabilities. The submissions attest to the benchmark's flexibility and adaptability. △ Less

Submitted 9 May, 2020; v1 submitted 6 November, 2019; originally announced November 2019.

Comments: ISCA 2020

MLPerf Training Benchmark

Authors: Peter Mattson, Christine Cheng, Cody Coleman, Greg Diamos, Paulius Micikevicius, David Patterson, Hanlin Tang, Gu-Yeon Wei, Peter Bailis, Victor Bittorf, David Brooks, Dehao Chen, Debojyoti Dutta, Udit Gupta, Kim Hazelwood, Andrew Hock, Xinyuan Huang, Atsushi Ike, Bill Jia, Daniel Kang, David Kanter, Naveen Kumar, Jeffery Liao, Guokai Ma, Deepak Narayanan , et al. (12 additional authors not shown)

Abstract: Machine learning (ML) needs industry-standard performance benchmarks to support design and competitive evaluation of the many emerging software and hardware solutions for ML. But ML training presents three unique benchmarking challenges absent from other domains: optimizations that improve training throughput can increase the time to solution, training is stochastic and time to solution exhibits h… ▽ More Machine learning (ML) needs industry-standard performance benchmarks to support design and competitive evaluation of the many emerging software and hardware solutions for ML. But ML training presents three unique benchmarking challenges absent from other domains: optimizations that improve training throughput can increase the time to solution, training is stochastic and time to solution exhibits high variance, and software and hardware systems are so diverse that fair benchmarking with the same binary, code, and even hyperparameters is difficult. We therefore present MLPerf, an ML benchmark that overcomes these challenges. Our analysis quantitatively evaluates MLPerf's efficacy at driving performance and scalability improvements across two rounds of results from multiple vendors. △ Less

Submitted 2 March, 2020; v1 submitted 2 October, 2019; originally announced October 2019.

Comments: MLSys 2020

Scale MLPerf-0.6 models on Google TPU-v3 Pods

Authors: Sameer Kumar, Victor Bitorff, Dehao Chen, Chiachen Chou, Blake Hechtman, HyoukJoong Lee, Naveen Kumar, Peter Mattson, Shibo Wang, Tao Wang, Yuanzhong Xu, Zongwei Zhou

Abstract: The recent submission of Google TPU-v3 Pods to the industry wide MLPerf v0.6 training benchmark demonstrates the scalability of a suite of industry relevant ML models. MLPerf defines a suite of models, datasets and rules to follow when benchmarking to ensure results are comparable across hardware, frameworks and companies. Using this suite of models, we discuss the optimizations and techniques inc… ▽ More The recent submission of Google TPU-v3 Pods to the industry wide MLPerf v0.6 training benchmark demonstrates the scalability of a suite of industry relevant ML models. MLPerf defines a suite of models, datasets and rules to follow when benchmarking to ensure results are comparable across hardware, frameworks and companies. Using this suite of models, we discuss the optimizations and techniques including choice of optimizer, spatial partitioning and weight update sharding necessary to scale to 1024 TPU chips. Furthermore, we identify properties of models that make scaling them challenging, such as limited data parallelism and unscaled weights. These optimizations contribute to record performance in transformer, Resnet-50 and SSD in the Google MLPerf-0.6 submission. △ Less

Submitted 2 October, 2019; v1 submitted 20 September, 2019; originally announced September 2019.