Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Irene Rogan Shaffer

dblp:227/5206 · also Irene Shaffer · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
2ranked-venue papers
1as first author
1since 2021 · last 2021
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Databases, data management, data science and information retrieval · 1 · 1 since 2021Human-computer interaction and ubiquitous computing · 1 · 1 first-author

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Databases, data mining, and information retrieval
1 paper
Query processing and optimization · 50% Machine learning and data management · 50%
Computer architecture, parallel and distributed computing, and storage systems
1 paper
Performance modeling and evaluation · 100%

Topics — the 3 heaviest of 3, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Machine learning and data management
learned database components
0.512021
PerfGuard: Deploying ML-for-Systems without Performance Regressions, Almost! · Proc. VLDB Endow. 2021
Query processing and optimization
query optimization
0.512021
PerfGuard: Deploying ML-for-Systems without Performance Regressions, Almost! · Proc. VLDB Endow. 2021
Performance modeling and evaluation › performance diagnosis
performance regression detection
0.112021
PerfGuard: Deploying ML-for-Systems without Performance Regressions, Almost! · Proc. VLDB Endow. 2021

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

pre-production experimentation · 1.0deep learning · 1.0
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2021 PerfGuard: Deploying ML-for-Systems without Performance Regressions, Almost!
abstract
Modern data processing systems require optimization at massive scale, and using machine learning to optimize these systems (ML-for-systems) has shown promising results. Unfortunately, ML-for-systems is subject to over generalizations that do not capture the large variety of workload patterns, and tend to augment the performance of certain subsets in the workload while regressing performance for others. In this paper, we introduce a performance safeguard system, called PerfGuard , that designs pre-production experiments for deploying ML-for-systems. Instead of searching the entire space of query plans (a well-known, intractable problem), we focus on query plan deltas (a significantly smaller space). PerfGuard formalizes these differences, and correlates plan deltas to important feedback signals, like execution cost. We describe the deep learning architecture and the end-to-end pipeline in PerfGuard that could be used with general relational databases. We show that this architecture improves on baseline models, and that our pipeline identifies key query plan components as major contributors to plan disparity. Offline experimentation shows PerfGuard as a promising approach, with many opportunities for future improvement.
H. M. Sajjad Hossain, Marc T. Friedman, Hiren Patel, Shi Qiao 0001, Soundar Srinivasan, Markus Weimer, Remmelt Ammerlaan, Lucas Rosenblatt, Gilbert Antonius, Peter Orenberg, Vijay Ramani, Abhishek Roy 0008, Irene Rogan Shaffer, Alekh Jindal
Proc. VLDB Endow.13
2018 Exploring the Performance of Facial Expression Recognition Technologies on Deaf Adults and Their Children
abstract
Facial and head movements have important linguistic roles in American Sign Language (ASL) and other sign languages. Without being properly trained, both human observers and existing emotion recognition tools will misinterpret ASL linguistic facial expressions. In this study, we capture over 2,000 photographs of 15 participants: five hearing, five Deaf, and five Children of Deaf Adults (CODAs). We then analyze the performance of six commercial facial expression recognition services on these photographs. Key observations include poor face detection rates for Deaf participants, more accurate emotion recognition for Deaf and CODA participants, and frequent misinterpretation of ASL linguistic markers as negative emotions. This suggests a need to include data from ASL users in the training sets for these technologies.
Irene Rogan Shaffer
ASSETS1