GAN dissection: visualizing and understanding generative adversarial networks
GAN dissection: visualizing and understanding generative adversarial networks Bau et al., arXiv’18
Earlier this week we looked at visualisations to aid understanding and interpretation of RNNs, today’s paper choice gives us a fascinating look at what happens inside a GAN (generative adversarial network). In addition to the paper, the code is available on GitHub and video demonstrations can be found on the project home page.
We’re interested in GANs that generate images.
To a human observer, a well-trained GAN appears to have learned facts about the objects in the image: for example, a door can appear on a building but not on a tree. We wish to understand how a GAN represents such a structure. Do the objects emerge as pure pixel patterns without any explicit representation of objects such as doors and trees, or does the GAN contain internal variables that correspond to the objects that humans perceive? If the GAN does contain variables for doors and trees, do those variables cause the generation of those objects, or do they merely correlate? How are relationships between objects represented?
The basis for the study is three variants of Progressive GANs trained on LSUN scene datasets. To understand what’s going Continue reading
Understanding hidden memories of recurrent neural networks
Understanding hidden memories of recurrent neural networks Ming et al., VAST’17
Last week we looked at CORALS, winner of round 9 of the Yelp dataset challenge. Today’s paper choice was a winner in round 10.
We’re used to visualisations of CNNs, which give interpretations of what is being learned in the hidden layers. But the inner workings of Recurrent Neural Networks (RNNs) have remained something of a mystery. RNNvis is a tool for visualising and exploring RNN models. Just as we have IDEs for regular application development, you can imagine a class of IMDEs (Interactive Model Development Environments) emerging that combine data and pipeline versioning and management, training, and interactive model exploration and visualisation tools.
Despite their impressive performances, RNNs are. still “black boxes” that are difficult for humans to understand… the lack of understanding of how RNN models work internally with their memories has limited researchers’ ability to introduce further improvements. A recent study also emphasized the importance of interpretability of machine learning models in building user’s trust: if users do not trust the model, they will not use it.
The focus of RNNvis is RNNs used for NLP tasks. Where we’re headed is an interactive visualisation Continue reading
CORALS: who are my potential new customers? Tapping into the wisdom of customers’ decisions
CORALS: who are my potential new customers? Tapping into the wisdom of customers’ decisions Li et al., WSDM’19
The authors of this paper won round 9 of the Yelp dataset challenge for their work. The goal is to find new target customers for local businesses by mining location-based checkins of users, user preferences, and online reviews.
Location-based social networks attract millions of users to share their social friendship and their locations via check-ins. For example, an average of 142 million users check in at local businesses via Yelp every month. Foursquare and 55 million monthly active users and 8 million daily check-ins on the Swarm application. Facebook Local, powered by 70 million businesses, facilitates the discovery of local events and places for over one billion active daily users.
(And of course these are just the explicit check-ins, location tracking has proved tempting to many businesses without requiring explicit user checkin actions. For example: Facebook is tracking your phone’s location… , Google’s location history is still recording your every move…, Google tracks your movements, like it or not, …).
Check-ins give us a location history. Preference for a given business will be influenced by the proximity of that Continue reading
Protecting user privacy: an approach for untraceable web browsing history and unambiguous user profiles
Protecting user privacy: an approach for untraceable web browsing history and unambiguous user profiles Beigi et al., WSDM’19
Maybe you’re reading this post online at The Morning Paper, and you came here by clicking a link in your Twitter feed because you follow my paper write-up announcements there. It might even be that you fairly frequently visit paper write-ups on The Morning Paper. And perhaps there are several other people you follow who also post links that appear in your Twitter feed, and occasionally you click on those links too. Given your ‘anonymous’ browsing history I could probably infer that you’re likely to be one of the 20K+ wonderful people with a wide-ranging interest in computer science and the concentration powers needed to follow longer write-ups that follow me on Twitter. You’re awesome, thank you! Tying other links in the browsing history to other social profiles that have promoted them, we might be able to work out who else our mystery browser probably follows on social media. It won’t be long before you’ve been re-identified from your browsing history. And that means everything else in that history can be tied back to you too. (See ‘De-anonymizing web Continue reading
The why and how of nonnegative matrix factorization
The why and how of nonnegative matrix factorization Gillis, arXiv 2014 from: ‘Regularization, Optimization, Kernels, and Support Vector Machines.’
Last week we looked at the paper ‘Beyond news content,’ which made heavy use of nonnegative matrix factorisation. Today we’ll be looking at that technique in a little more detail. As the name suggests, ‘The Why and How of Nonnegative matrix factorisation’ describes both why NMF is interesting (the intuition for how it works), and how to compute an NMF. I’m mostly interested in the intuition (and also out of my depth for some of the how!), but I’ll give you a sketch of the implementation approaches.
Nonnegative matrix factorization (NMF) has become a widely used tool for the analysis of high dimensional data as it automatically extracts sparse and meaningful features from a set of nonnegative data vectors.
NMF was first introduced by Paatero andTapper in 1994, and popularised in a article by Lee and Seung in 1999. Since then, the number of publications referencing the technique has grown rapidly:
What is NMF?
NMF approximates a matrix 
For the discussion in this paper, we’ll assume that
A survey on dynamic and stochastic vehicle routing problems
A survey on dynamic and stochastic vehicle routing problems Ritzinger et al., International Journal of Production Research
It’s been a while since we last looked at an overview of dynamic vehicle routing problems: that was back in 2014 (See ‘Dynamic vehicle routing, pickup, and delivery problems’). That paper has fond memories for me, I looked at it while doing diligence for our investment in Deliveroo, and my how they’ve grown since then! With vehicle routing problems popping up in a number of interesting businesses, it’s time to take another look! Today’s paper choice is a more recent survey, focusing in on DSVRP problems.
So what exactly is a DSVRP problem? The VRP part stands for vehicle routing problems, typically you have a fleet of vehicles, and you need to use them to make a set of deliveries from point A to point B. How you assign pick-ups and deliveries to vehicles, and the routes those vehicles take, is the the VRP problem. Historically the VRP problem would be solved statically (we know up front the set of vehicles, pick-up and drop-off locations, etc.). Much more interesting (and much more realistic for many companies) is when we Continue reading
Beyond news contents: the role of social context for fake news detection
Beyond news contents: the role of social context for fake news detection Shu et al., WSDM’19
Today we’re looking at a more general fake news problem: detecting fake news that is being spread on a social network. Forgetting the computer science angle for a minute, it seems intuitive to me that some important factors here might be:
- what is being said (the content of the news), and perhaps how it is being said (although fake news can be deliberately written to mislead users by mimicking true news)
- where it was published (the credibility / authority of the source publication). For example, something in the Financial Times is more likely to be true than something in The Onion!
- who is spreading the news (the credibility of the user accounts retweeting it for example – are they bots??)
Therefore I’m a little surprised to read in the introduction that:
The majority of existing detection algorithms focus on finding clues from the news content, which are generally not effective because fake news is often intentionally written to mislead users by mimicking true news.
(The related work section does however discuss several works that include social context.).
So instead of Continue reading
ExFaKT: a framework for explaining facts over knowledge graphs and text
ExFaKT: a framework for explaining facts over knowledge graphs and text Gad-Elrab et al., WSDM’19
Last week we took a look at Graph Neural Networks for learning with structured representations. Another kind of graph of interest for learning and inference is the knowledge graph.
Knowledge Graphs (KGs) are large collections of factual triples of the form
(SPO) about people, companies, places etc.
(SPO) about people, companies, places etc. Today’s paper choice focuses on the topical area of fact-checking : how do we know whether a candidate fact, which might for example be harvested from a news article or social media post, is likely to be true? For the first generation of knowledge graphs, fact checking was performed manually by human reviewers, but this clearly doesn’t scale to the volume of information published daily. Automated fact checking methods typically produce a numerical score (probability the fact is true), but these scores are hard to understand and justify without a corresponding explanation.
To better support KG curators in deciding the correctness of candidate facts, we propose a novel framework for finding semantically related evidence in Web sources and the underlying KG, and for computing human—comprehensible explanations for facts. We refer to our framework as ExFaKT (Ex Continue reading
Graph neural networks: a review of methods and applications
Graph neural networks: a review of methods and applications Zhou et al., arXiv 2019
It’s another graph neural networks survey paper today! Cue the obligatory bus joke. Clearly, this covers much of the same territory as we looked at earlier in the week, but when we’re lucky enough to get two surveys published in short succession it can add a lot to compare the two different perspectives and sense of what’s important. In particular here, Zhou et al., have a different formulation for describing the core GNN problem, and a nice approach to splitting out the various components. Rather than make this a standalone write-up, I’m going to lean heavily on the Graph neural network survey we looked at on Wednesday and try to enrich my understanding starting from there.
An abstract GNN model
For this survey, the GNN problem is framed based on the formulation in the original GNN paper, ‘The graph neural network model,’ Scarselli 2009.
Associated with each node is an s-dimensional state vector.
The target of GNN is to learn a state embedding
which contains the information of the neighbourhood for each node.
Given the state embedding we can produce a node-level Continue reading
which contains the information of the neighbourhood for each node. A comprehensive survey on graph neural networks
A comprehensive survey on graph neural networks Wu et al., arXiv’19
Last year we looked at ‘Relational inductive biases, deep learning, and graph networks,’ where the authors made the case for deep learning with structured representations, which are naturally represented as graphs. Today’s paper choice provides us with a broad sweep of the graph neural network landscape. It’s a survey paper, so you’ll find details on the key approaches and representative papers, as well as information on commonly used datasets and benchmark performance on them.
We’ll be talking about graphs as defined by a tuple 
In an attributed graph we also have a set of attributes for each node. For node attributes with D dimensions we have a node feature matrix 
A spatial-temporal graph is one where the feature matrix 
TensorFlow.js: machine learning for the web and beyond
TensorFlow.js: machine learning for the web and beyond Smilkov et al., SysML’19
If machine learning and ML models are to pervade all of our applications and systems, then they’d better go to where the applications are rather than the other way round. Increasingly, that means JavaScript – both in the browser and on the server.
TensorFlow.js brings TensorFlow and Keras to the the JavaScript ecosystem, supporting both Node.js and browser-based applications. As well as programmer accessibility and ease of integration, running on-device means that in many cases user data never has to leave the device.
On-device computation has a number of benefits, including data privacy, accessibility, and low-latency interactive applications.
TensorFlow.js isn’t just for model serving, you can run training with it as well. Since it’s launch in March 2018, people have done lots of creative things with it. And since it runs in the browser, these are all accessible to you with just one click! Some examples:
- Teachable machine – build your own image classifier in the browser using your webcam
- GAN lab – interactive visual exploration of GANs
- The ML5 online course for artists, creative coders, and students.
- Sign language to speech Continue reading
Fixed it for you: protocol repair using lineage graphs
Fixed it for you: protocol repair using lineage graphs Oldenburg et al., CIDR’19
This is a cool paper on a number of levels. Firstly, the main result that catches my eye is that it’s possible to build a distributed systems ‘debugger’ that can suggest protocol-level fixes. E.g. say you have a system that sometimes sends acks before it really should, resulting in the possibility of state loss. Nemo can uncover this and suggest a change to the protocol that removes the window. Secondly, it uses an obscure (from the perspective of most readers of this blog) programming language called Dedalus. Dedalus is a great example of how a different programming paradigm can help us to think about a problem differently and generate new insights and possibilities. (Dedalus is a temporal logic programming language based on datalog). Now, it would be easy for practitioner readers to immediately dismiss the work as not relevant to them given they won’t be coding systems in Dedalus anytime soon. The third thing I want to highlight in this introduction therefore is the research strategy:
Nemo operates on an idealized model in which distributed executions are centrally simulated, record-level provenance of these Continue reading
Veritas: shared verifiable databases and tables in the cloud
Veritas: shared verifiable databases and tables in the cloud Allen et al., CIDR’19
Two (or more) parties want to transact based on the sharing of information (e.g. current offers). In order to have trust in the system and provide a foundation for resolving disputes, we’d like a tamperproof and immutable audit log of all shared data and actions, such that an independent auditor can reconstruct the state of the system at any point in time.
Enter the blockchain?! Not so fast say Allen et al., blockchain technology as we know it today is ‘one step forward, two steps back’ ;).
Today, for gaining immutability and auditability with new blockchain platforms, we give up decades of research in data management— and hardened, enterprise-ready code that implements these ideas.
We’d still like to be able to use SQL for example. We want transaction throughput much closer to a traditional database, and we want to take advantage of query optimisation and sophisticated query processing engines. We could try adding database like features to blockchain systems, but that looks to be a long road:
There are now a gazillion start-ups that are adding these basic database features to blockchains, Continue reading
The case for network-accelerated query processing
The case for network-accelerated query processing Lerner et al., CIDR’19
Datastores continue to advance on a number of fronts. Some of those that come to mind are adapting to faster networks (e.g. ‘FARM: Fast Remote Memory’) and persistent memory (see e.g. ‘Let’s talk about storage and recovery methods for non-volatile memory database systems’), deeply integrating approximate query processing (e.g. ‘ApproxHadoop: Bringing approximations to MapReduce frameworks’ and ‘BlinkDB’), embedding machine learning in the core of the system (e.g. ‘SageDB’), and offloading processing into the network (e.g KV-Direct) — one particular example of exploiting hardware accelerators. Today’s paper gives us an exciting look at the untapped potential for network-accelerated query processing. We’re going to need all that data structure synthesis and cost-model based exploration coupled with self-learning to unlock the potential that arises from all of these advances in tandem!
NetAccel uses programmable network devices to offload some query patterns for MPP databases into the switch.
Thus, for the first time, moving data through networking equipment can contributed to query execution. Our preliminary results show that we can improve response times on even the best Continue reading
Programming paradigms for dummies: what every programmer should know
Programming paradigms for dummies: what every programmer should know Peter Van Roy, 2009
We’ll get back to CIDR’19 next week, but chasing the thread starting with the Data Continuum paper led me to this book chapter by Peter Van Roy mapping out the space of programming language designs. (Thanks to TuringTest for posting a reference to it in a HN thread). It was too good not to take a short detour to cover it! If you like the chapter, you’ll probably enjoy the book, ‘Concepts, Techinques, and Models of Computer Programming’ by Van Roy & Hardi on which much of this chapter was based .
This chapter gives an introduction to all the main programming paradigms, their underlying concepts, and the relationships between them… We give a taxonomy of about 30 useful programming paradigms and how they are related.
Programming paradigms are approaches based on a mathematical theory or particular set of principles, each paradigm supporting a set of concepts. Van Roy is a believer in multi-paradigm languages: solving a programming problem requires choosing the right concepts, and many problems require different sets of concepts for different parts. Moreover, many programs have to solve more than one problem! Continue reading
The data calculator: data structure design and cost synthesis from first principles and learned cost models
The Data Calculator: data structure design and cost synthesis from first principles and learned cost models Idreos et al., SIGMOD’18
This paper preceded the work on data continuums that we looked at last time, and takes a more general look at interactive and semi-automated design of data structures. A data structure here is defined as a combination of (1) a data layout describing how the data is stored, and (2) algorithms that describe how its basic functionality is achieved over the specific data layout. For data structures with just two different types of nodes (e.g., leaf-nodes and non-leaf nodes in a tree), the authors estimate there are more than 
Our intuition as that most designs (and even inventions) are about combining a small set of fundamental concepts in different ways or tunings… Our vision is to build the periodic table of data structures so we can express their massive design space. We take the first step in the paper, presenting a set of first principles that can synthesize an order of magnitude more data structure designs Continue reading
Design continuums and the path toward self-designing key-value stores that know and learn
Design continuums and the path toward self-designing key-value stores that know and learn Idreos et al., CIDR’19
We’ve seen systems that help to select the best data structure from a pre-defined set of choices (e.g. ‘Darwinian data structure selection’), systems that synthesise data structure implementations given an abstract specification (‘Generalized data structure synthesis’), systems that use learning to tune configurations given a pre-defined set of configuration options (e.g, ‘BOAT: Building auto-tuners with structured Bayesian optimization’), systems that use learned models as key inputs to algorithms (e.g. ‘SageDB: a learned database system’), and systems that use reinforcement learning to discover fit-for-workload policies (‘Towards a hands-free query optimizer through deep learning’). Today’s paper choice jumps right into the middle of this mix, showing how families of data structures can be organised into design continuums with well-understood design parameters and cost models informing selection of a given data-structure design from within the space. As well as helping us to understand and reason about data structures within the space, the constrained feature space with quick-to-evaluate cost models opens the way to practical machine learning guided data structure synthesis and selection. Continue reading
Towards a hands-free query optimizer through deep learning
Towards a hands-free query optimizer through deep learning Marcus & Papaemmanouil, CIDR’19
Where the SageDB paper stopped— at the exploration of learned models to assist in query optimisation— today’s paper choice picks up, looking exclusively at the potential to apply learning (in this case deep reinforcement learning) to build a better optimiser.
Why reinforcement learning?
Query optimisers are traditionally composed of carefully tuned and complex heuristics based on years of experience. Feedback from the actual execution of query plans can be used to update cardinality estimates. Database cracking, adaptive indexing, and adaptive query processing all incorporate elements of feedback as well.
In this vision paper, we argue that recent advances in deep reinforcement learning (DRL) can be applied to query optimization, resulting in a “hands-free” optimizer that (1) can tune itself for a particular database automatically without requiring intervention from expert DBAs, and (2) tightly incorporates feedback from past query optimizations and executions in order to improve the performance of query execution plans generated in the future.
If we view query optimisation as a DRL problem, then in reinforcement learning terminology the optimiser is the agent, the current query plan is the state, and each available action Continue reading
SageDB: a learned database system
SageDB: a learned database system Kraska et al., CIDR’19
About this time last year, a paper entitled ‘The case for learned index structures’ (part I, part II) generated a lot of excitement and debate. Today’s paper choice builds on that foundation, putting forward a vision where learned models pervade every aspect of a database system.
The core idea behind SageDB is to build one or more models about the data and workload distribution and based on them automatically build the best data structures and algorithms for all components of the database system. This approach, which we call “database synthesis” will allow us to achieve unprecedented performance by specializing the implementation of every database component to the specific database, query workload, and execution environment.
For the want of a model
In the absence of runtime learning and adaptation, database systems are engineered for general purpose use and do not take full advantage of the specific characteristics of the workload and data at hand. The size of the opportunity for SageDB is the gap between such an approach and what is possible when designing a specialised solution with full knowledge of the data distribution and workload.
Consider an Continue reading
Serverless computing: one step forward, two steps back
Serverless computing: one step forward, two steps back Hellerstein et al., CIDR’19
The biennial Conference on Innovative Data Systems Research has come round again. Today’s paper choice is sure to generate some healthy debate, and it’s a good set of questions to spend some time thinking over as we head into 2019: Where do you think serverless is heading? What is it good for today? What’s the end-goal here?
The authors see ‘critical gaps’ in current first-generation serverless offerings from the major cloud vendors (AWS, Azure, GCP). I’m sure some will read the paper as serverless-bashing, but I read into it more of an appeal from the heart to not stop where we are today, but to continue to pursue infrastructure and programming models truly designed for cloud platforms. Platforms that offer ‘unlimited’ data storage, ‘unlimited’ distributed processing power, and the ability to harness these only as needed.
We hope this paper shifts the discussion from ‘What it serverless?’ Or ‘Will serverless win?’ to a rethinking of how we design infrastructure and programming models to spark real innovation in data-rich, cloud-scale systems. We see the future of cloud programming as far, far brighter than the promise of Continue reading