skip to main content
10.1145/3299869.3300089acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesmodConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

A Holistic Approach for Query Evaluation andResult Vocalization in Voice-Based OLAP

Published:25 June 2019Publication History

ABSTRACT

We focus on the problem of answering OLAP queries via voice output. We present a holistic approach that combines query processing and result vocalization. We use the following key ideas to minimize processing overheads and maximize answer quality. First, our approach samples from the database to evaluate alternative speech fragments. OLAP queries are not fully evaluated. Instead, sampling focuses on result aspects that are relevant for voice output. To guide sampling, we rely on methods from the area of Monte-Carlo Tree Search. Second, we use pipelining to interleave query processing and voice output. The system starts providing the user with high-level insights while generating more fine-grained results in the background. Third, we optimize speech output to maximize the user's information gain under speaking time constraints. We use a maximum-entropy model to predict the user's belief about OLAP results, after listening to voice output. Based on that model, we select the most informative speech fragments (i.e., the ones minimizing the distance between user belief and actual data). We analyze formal properties of the proposed speech structure and analyze complexity of our algorithm. Also, we compare alternative vocalization approaches in an extensive user study.

References

  1. CB Browne and Edward Powley. 2012. A survey of monte carlo tree search methods . Trans. on Computational Intelligence and AI in Games, Vol. 4, 1 (2012), 1--49. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpls/abs_all.jsp?arnumber=6145622Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Dharmil Chandarana, Vraj Shah, Arun Kumar, and Lawrence Saul. 2017. SpeakQL: towards speech-driven multi-modal querying. In HILDA. 1--6.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Yu Feng and Shan Wang. 2002. Compressed data cube for approximate OLAP query processing . Journal of Computer Science and Technology, Vol. 17, 5 (2002), 625--635.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Sylvain Gelly, L Kocsis, and Marc Schoenauer. 2012. The grand challenge of computer go: monte carlo tree search and extensions . Commun. ACM, Vol. 3 (2012), 106--113. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2093574 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Google. {n. d.}. Google Assistant SDK . https://developers.google.com/assistant/sdk/overview.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Silviu Guiasu and Abe Shenitzer. 1985. The principle of maximum entropy . The Mathematical Intelligencer, Vol. 7, 1 (1985), 42--48.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Thomas Hermann, Andy Hunt, and John G Neuhoff. 2011. The Sonification Handbook. 301--324 pages. arxiv: arXiv:1011.1669v3Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Ruoming Jin, Leo Glimcher, Chris Jermaine, and Gagan Agrawal. 2006. New sampling-based estimators for OLAP queries . In ICDE. 18. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Manas Joglekar, Hector Garcia-molina, and Aditya Parameswaran. 2015. Smart drill down . VLDBJ, Vol. 8, 12 (2015), 1928--1931. arxiv: arXiv:1412.0364v1Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Shantanu Joshi and Christopher Jermaine. 2008. Materialized sample views for database approximation . ICDE, Vol. 20, 3 (2008), 337--351. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Uwe Jugel, Zbigniew Jerzak, and Gregor Hackenbroich. 2014. M4 : A Visualization-Oriented Time Series Data Aggregation . VLDB, Vol. 7, 10 (2014), 797--808. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Niranjan Kamat and Arnab Nandi. 2017. InfiniViz: Interactive Visual Exploration using Progressive Bin Refinement . arXiv preprint arXiv:1710.01854 (2017). arxiv: 1710.01854 http://arxiv.org/abs/1710.01854Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Albert Kim, Eric Blais, Aditya Parameswaran, Piotr Indyk, Sam Madden, and Ronitt Rubinfeld. 2015. Rapid sampling for visualizations with ordering guarantees . VLDB, Vol. 8, 5 (2015), 521--532. arxiv: 1412.3040 Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Levente Kocsis and C Szepesvá ri. 2006. Bandit based monte-carlo planning. In European Conf. on Machine Learning . 282--293. http://www.springerlink.com/index/D232253353517276.pdf Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Xiaolei Li, Jiawei Han, Zhijun Yin, Jae-Gil Lee, and Yizhou Sun. 2008. Sampling cube: a framework for statistical olap over sampling data. In SIGMOD . 779--790. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Zhicheng Liu and Jeffrey Heer. 2014. The effects of interactive latency on exploratory visual analysis . IEEE Transactions on Visualization & Computer Graphics, Vol. 20, 12 (2014), 2122--2131.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. Gabriel Lyons, Vinh Tran, Carsten Binnig, Ugur Cetintemel, and Tim Kraska. 2016. Making the case for Query-by-Voice with EchoQuery. In SIGMOD . 2129--2132. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Patrick Marcel, Place Jean Jaurè s, and Stefano Rizzi. 2012. Towards intensional answers to OLAP queries for analytical sessions. In DOLAP . 49--56. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Robert B. Miller. 1968. Response time in man-computer conversational transactions. In AFIPS . 267--277. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Navneet Potti and Jignesh M. Patel. 2015. DAQ: A new paradigm for approximate query processing . VLDB, Vol. 8, 9 (2015), 898--909. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Rameshsharma Ramloll, Wai Yu, and Beate Riedel. 2001. Using non-speech sounds to improve access to 2D tabular numerical information for visually impaired users. In Conference of the British HCI Group . 515--529. http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/3223/Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. S. Sarawagi. 2000. User-adaptive exploration of multidimensional data. In VLDB. 307--316. http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/sarawagi00useradaptive.htmlGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Ben Shneiderman. 1984. Response time and display rate in human performance with computers . Comput. Surveys, Vol. 16, 3 (1984), 265--285. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Immanuel Trummer, Mark Bryan, and Ramya Narasimha. 2018. Vocalizing large time series efficiently. In VLDB. 1--12. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Immanuel Trummer, Jiancheng Zhu, and Mark Bryan. 2017. Data vocalization: optimizing voice output of relational data . VLDB, Vol. 10, 11 (2017), 1574--1585. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. A Holistic Approach for Query Evaluation andResult Vocalization in Voice-Based OLAP

            Recommendations

            Comments

            Login options

            Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

            Sign in
            • Published in

              cover image ACM Conferences
              SIGMOD '19: Proceedings of the 2019 International Conference on Management of Data
              June 2019
              2106 pages
              ISBN:9781450356435
              DOI:10.1145/3299869

              Copyright © 2019 ACM

              Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

              Publisher

              Association for Computing Machinery

              New York, NY, United States

              Publication History

              • Published: 25 June 2019

              Permissions

              Request permissions about this article.

              Request Permissions

              Check for updates

              Qualifiers

              • research-article

              Acceptance Rates

              SIGMOD '19 Paper Acceptance Rate88of430submissions,20%Overall Acceptance Rate785of4,003submissions,20%

            PDF Format

            View or Download as a PDF file.

            PDF

            eReader

            View online with eReader.

            eReader