More Like this

1. Self-Supervised Multi-Channel Hypergraph Convolutional Network for Social Recommendation

   https://doi.org/10.1145/3442381.3449844  

   Yu, Junliang ; Yin, Hongzhi ; Li, Jundong ; Wang, Qinyong ; Hung, Nguyen Quoc ; Zhang, Xiangliang ( April 2021 , Proceedings of the Web Conference 2021)

   null (Ed.)

   Social relations are often used to improve recommendation quality when user-item interaction data is sparse in recommender systems. Most existing social recommendation models exploit pairwise relations to mine potential user preferences. However, real-life interactions among users are very complex and user relations can be high-order. Hypergraph provides a natural way to model high-order relations, while its potentials for improving social recommendation are under-explored. In this paper, we fill this gap and propose a multi-channel hypergraph convolutional network to enhance social recommendation by leveraging high-order user relations. Technically, each channel in the network encodes a hypergraph that depicts a common high-order user relation pattern via hypergraph convolution. By aggregating the embeddings learned through multiple channels, we obtain comprehensive user representations to generate recommendation results. However, the aggregation operation might also obscure the inherent characteristics of different types of high-order connectivity information. To compensate for the aggregating loss, we innovatively integrate self-supervised learning into the training of the hypergraph convolutional network to regain the connectivity information with hierarchical mutual information maximization. Extensive experiments on multiple real-world datasets demonstrate the superiority of the proposed model over the current SOTA methods, and the ablation study verifies the effectiveness and rationale of the multi-channel setting and the self-supervised task. The implementation of our model is available via https://github.com/Coder-Yu/RecQ. 

   more » « less
2. Gas‐Driven Tensile Fracturing in Shallow Marine Sediments

   https://doi.org/10.1029/2020JB020835  

   Daigle, Hugh ; Cook, Ann ; Fang, Yi ; Bihani, Abhishek ; Song, Wen ; Flemings, Peter B. ( December 2020 , Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth)

   The flow of gas through shallow marine sediments is an important component of the global carbon cycle and affects methane release to the ocean and atmosphere as well as submarine slope stability. Seafloor methane venting is often linked to dissociating hydrates or gas migration from a deep source, and subsurface evidence of gas‐driven tensile fracturing is abundant. However, the physical links among hydrate dissociation, gas flow, and fracturing have not been rigorously investigated. We used mercury intrusion data to model the capillary drainage curves of shallow marine muds as a function of clay content and porosity. We combined these with estimates of in situ tensile strength to determine the critical gas saturation at which the pressure of the gas phase would exceed the pressure required to generate tensile fractures. Our work showed that fracturing is favored in the shallowest 38 m of sediment when the clay‐sized fraction is 0.2, but fracturing may be possible to a depth of 132 m below seafloor (mbsf) with a clay‐sized fraction of 0.5 and to a depth of nearly 500 mbsf with a clay‐sized fraction of 0.7. Dissociating hydrate may supply sufficient quantities of gas to cause fracturing, but this is only likely near the updip limit of the hydrate stability zone. Gas‐driven tensile fracturing is probably a common occurrence in the upper 10–20 mbsf regardless of clay‐sized fraction, does not require much gas (far less than 10% gas saturation), and is not necessarily an indication of hydrate dissociation.

    

   more » « less
3. HyperSoRec: Exploiting Hyperbolic User and Item Representations with Multiple Aspects for Social-aware Recommendation

   https://doi.org/10.1145/3463913  

   Wang, Hao ; Lian, Defu ; Tong, Hanghang ; Liu, Qi ; Huang, Zhenya ; Chen, Enhong ( April 2022 , ACM Transactions on Information Systems)

   Social recommendation has achieved great success in many domains including e-commerce and location-based social networks. Existing methods usually explore the user-item interactions or user-user connections to predict users’ preference behaviors. However, they usually learn both user and item representations in Euclidean space, which has large limitations for exploring the latent hierarchical property in the data. In this article, we study a novel problem of hyperbolic social recommendation, where we aim to learn the compact but strong representations for both users and items. Meanwhile, this work also addresses two critical domain-issues, which are under-explored. First, users often make trade-offs with multiple underlying aspect factors to make decisions during their interactions with items. Second, users generally build connections with others in terms of different aspects, which produces different influences with aspects in social network. To this end, we propose a novel graph neural network (GNN) framework with multiple aspect learning, namely, HyperSoRec. Specifically, we first embed all users, items, and aspects into hyperbolic space with superior representations to ensure their hierarchical properties. Then, we adapt a GNN with novel multi-aspect message-passing-receiving mechanism to capture different influences among users. Next, to characterize the multi-aspect interactions of users on items, we propose an adaptive hyperbolic metric learning method by introducing learnable interactive relations among different aspects. Finally, we utilize the hyperbolic translational distance to measure the plausibility in each user-item pair for recommendation. Experimental results on two public datasets clearly demonstrate that our HyperSoRec not only achieves significant improvement for recommendation performance but also shows better representation ability in hyperbolic space with strong robustness and reliability. 

   more » « less
4. Hierarchical Exploration of Continuous Seismograms With Unsupervised Learning

   https://doi.org/10.1029/2021JB022455  

   Steinmann, René ; Seydoux, Léonard ; Beaucé, Éric ; Campillo, Michel ( January 2022 , Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth)

   Continuous seismograms contain a wealth of information with a large variety of signals with different origin. Identifying these signals is a crucial step in understanding physical geological objects. We propose a strategy to identify classes of signals in continuous single‐station seismograms in an unsupervised fashion. Our strategy relies on extracting meaningful waveform features based on a deep scattering network combined with an independent component analysis. Based on the extracted features, agglomerative clustering then groups these waveforms in a hierarchical fashion and reveals the process of clustering in a dendrogram. We use the dendrogram to explore the seismic data and identify different classes of signals. To test our strategy, we investigate a two‐day‐long seismogram collected in the vicinity of the North Anatolian Fault, Turkey. We analyze the automatically inferred clusters' occurrence rate, spectral characteristics, cluster size, and waveform and envelope characteristics. At a low level in the cluster hierarchy, we obtain three clusters related to anthropogenic and ambient seismic noise and one cluster related to earthquake activity. At a high level in the cluster hierarchy, we identify a seismic burst that includes around 200 events with similar waveforms and high‐frequent signals with correlating envelopes and an anthropogenic origin. The application shows that the cluster hierarchy helps to identify particular families of signals and to extract subclusters for further analysis. This is valuable when certain types of signals, such as earthquakes, are under‐represented in the data. The proposed method may also successfully discover new types of signals since it is entirely data‐driven.

    

   more » « less
5. A Deep Learning-Based Real-time Seizure Detection System

   https://doi.org/10.1109/SPMB50085.2020.9353623  

   Shawki, N. ; Elseify, T. ; Cap, T. ; Shah, V. ; Obeid, I. ; Picone, J. ( December 2020 , Proceedings of the IEEE Signal Processing in Medicine and Biology Symposium (SPMB))

   Obeid, Iyad Selesnick (Ed.)

   Electroencephalography (EEG) is a popular clinical monitoring tool used for diagnosing brain-related disorders such as epilepsy [1]. As monitoring EEGs in a critical-care setting is an expensive and tedious task, there is a great interest in developing real-time EEG monitoring tools to improve patient care quality and efficiency [2]. However, clinicians require automatic seizure detection tools that provide decisions with at least 75% sensitivity and less than 1 false alarm (FA) per 24 hours [3]. Some commercial tools recently claim to reach such performance levels, including the Olympic Brainz Monitor [4] and Persyst 14 [5]. In this abstract, we describe our efforts to transform a high-performance offline seizure detection system [3] into a low latency real-time or online seizure detection system. An overview of the system is shown in Figure 1. The main difference between an online versus offline system is that an online system should always be causal and has minimum latency which is often defined by domain experts. The offline system, shown in Figure 2, uses two phases of deep learning models with postprocessing [3]. The channel-based long short term memory (LSTM) model (Phase 1 or P1) processes linear frequency cepstral coefficients (LFCC) [6] features from each EEG channel separately. We use the hypotheses generated by the P1 model and create additional features that carry information about the detected events and their confidence. The P2 model uses these additional features and the LFCC features to learn the temporal and spatial aspects of the EEG signals using a hybrid convolutional neural network (CNN) and LSTM model. Finally, Phase 3 aggregates the results from both P1 and P2 before applying a final postprocessing step. The online system implements Phase 1 by taking advantage of the Linux piping mechanism, multithreading techniques, and multi-core processors. To convert Phase 1 into an online system, we divide the system into five major modules: signal preprocessor, feature extractor, event decoder, postprocessor, and visualizer. The system reads 0.1-second frames from each EEG channel and sends them to the feature extractor and the visualizer. The feature extractor generates LFCC features in real time from the streaming EEG signal. Next, the system computes seizure and background probabilities using a channel-based LSTM model and applies a postprocessor to aggregate the detected events across channels. The system then displays the EEG signal and the decisions simultaneously using a visualization module. The online system uses C++, Python, TensorFlow, and PyQtGraph in its implementation. The online system accepts streamed EEG data sampled at 250 Hz as input. The system begins processing the EEG signal by applying a TCP montage [8]. Depending on the type of the montage, the EEG signal can have either 22 or 20 channels. To enable the online operation, we send 0.1-second (25 samples) length frames from each channel of the streamed EEG signal to the feature extractor and the visualizer. Feature extraction is performed sequentially on each channel. The signal preprocessor writes the sample frames into two streams to facilitate these modules. In the first stream, the feature extractor receives the signals using stdin. In parallel, as a second stream, the visualizer shares a user-defined file with the signal preprocessor. This user-defined file holds raw signal information as a buffer for the visualizer. The signal preprocessor writes into the file while the visualizer reads from it. Reading and writing into the same file poses a challenge. The visualizer can start reading while the signal preprocessor is writing into it. To resolve this issue, we utilize a file locking mechanism in the signal preprocessor and visualizer. Each of the processes temporarily locks the file, performs its operation, releases the lock, and tries to obtain the lock after a waiting period. The file locking mechanism ensures that only one process can access the file by prohibiting other processes from reading or writing while one process is modifying the file [9]. The feature extractor uses circular buffers to save 0.3 seconds or 75 samples from each channel for extracting 0.2-second or 50-sample long center-aligned windows. The module generates 8 absolute LFCC features where the zeroth cepstral coefficient is replaced by a temporal domain energy term. For extracting the rest of the features, three pipelines are used. The differential energy feature is calculated in a 0.9-second absolute feature window with a frame size of 0.1 seconds. The difference between the maximum and minimum temporal energy terms is calculated in this range. Then, the first derivative or the delta features are calculated using another 0.9-second window. Finally, the second derivative or delta-delta features are calculated using a 0.3-second window [6]. The differential energy for the delta-delta features is not included. In total, we extract 26 features from the raw sample windows which add 1.1 seconds of delay to the system. We used the Temple University Hospital Seizure Database (TUSZ) v1.2.1 for developing the online system [10]. The statistics for this dataset are shown in Table 1. A channel-based LSTM model was trained using the features derived from the train set using the online feature extractor module. A window-based normalization technique was applied to those features. In the offline model, we scale features by normalizing using the maximum absolute value of a channel [11] before applying a sliding window approach. Since the online system has access to a limited amount of data, we normalize based on the observed window. The model uses the feature vectors with a frame size of 1 second and a window size of 7 seconds. We evaluated the model using the offline P1 postprocessor to determine the efficacy of the delayed features and the window-based normalization technique. As shown by the results of experiments 1 and 4 in Table 2, these changes give us a comparable performance to the offline model. The online event decoder module utilizes this trained model for computing probabilities for the seizure and background classes. These posteriors are then postprocessed to remove spurious detections. The online postprocessor receives and saves 8 seconds of class posteriors in a buffer for further processing. It applies multiple heuristic filters (e.g., probability threshold) to make an overall decision by combining events across the channels. These filters evaluate the average confidence, the duration of a seizure, and the channels where the seizures were observed. The postprocessor delivers the label and confidence to the visualizer. The visualizer starts to display the signal as soon as it gets access to the signal file, as shown in Figure 1 using the “Signal File” and “Visualizer” blocks. Once the visualizer receives the label and confidence for the latest epoch from the postprocessor, it overlays the decision and color codes that epoch. The visualizer uses red for seizure with the label SEIZ and green for the background class with the label BCKG. Once the streaming finishes, the system saves three files: a signal file in which the sample frames are saved in the order they were streamed, a time segmented event (TSE) file with the overall decisions and confidences, and a hypotheses (HYP) file that saves the label and confidence for each epoch. The user can plot the signal and decisions using the signal and HYP files with only the visualizer by enabling appropriate options. For comparing the performance of different stages of development, we used the test set of TUSZ v1.2.1 database. It contains 1015 EEG records of varying duration. The any-overlap performance [12] of the overall system shown in Figure 2 is 40.29% sensitivity with 5.77 FAs per 24 hours. For comparison, the previous state-of-the-art model developed on this database performed at 30.71% sensitivity with 6.77 FAs per 24 hours [3]. The individual performances of the deep learning phases are as follows: Phase 1’s (P1) performance is 39.46% sensitivity and 11.62 FAs per 24 hours, and Phase 2 detects seizures with 41.16% sensitivity and 11.69 FAs per 24 hours. We trained an LSTM model with the delayed features and the window-based normalization technique for developing the online system. Using the offline decoder and postprocessor, the model performed at 36.23% sensitivity with 9.52 FAs per 24 hours. The trained model was then evaluated with the online modules. The current performance of the overall online system is 45.80% sensitivity with 28.14 FAs per 24 hours. Table 2 summarizes the performances of these systems. The performance of the online system deviates from the offline P1 model because the online postprocessor fails to combine the events as the seizure probability fluctuates during an event. The modules in the online system add a total of 11.1 seconds of delay for processing each second of the data, as shown in Figure 3. In practice, we also count the time for loading the model and starting the visualizer block. When we consider these facts, the system consumes 15 seconds to display the first hypothesis. The system detects seizure onsets with an average latency of 15 seconds. Implementing an automatic seizure detection model in real time is not trivial. We used a variety of techniques such as the file locking mechanism, multithreading, circular buffers, real-time event decoding, and signal-decision plotting to realize the system. A video demonstrating the system is available at: https://www.isip.piconepress.com/projects/nsf_pfi_tt/resources/videos/realtime_eeg_analysis/v2.5.1/video_2.5.1.mp4. The final conference submission will include a more detailed analysis of the online performance of each module. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Research reported in this publication was most recently supported by the National Science Foundation Partnership for Innovation award number IIP-1827565 and the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Universal Research Enhancement Program (PA CURE). Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official views of any of these organizations. REFERENCES [1] A. Craik, Y. He, and J. L. Contreras-Vidal, “Deep learning for electroencephalogram (EEG) classification tasks: a review,” J. Neural Eng., vol. 16, no. 3, p. 031001, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1088/1741-2552/ab0ab5. [2] A. C. Bridi, T. Q. Louro, and R. C. L. Da Silva, “Clinical Alarms in intensive care: implications of alarm fatigue for the safety of patients,” Rev. Lat. Am. Enfermagem, vol. 22, no. 6, p. 1034, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1590/0104-1169.3488.2513. [3] M. Golmohammadi, V. Shah, I. Obeid, and J. Picone, “Deep Learning Approaches for Automatic Seizure Detection from Scalp Electroencephalograms,” in Signal Processing in Medicine and Biology: Emerging Trends in Research and Applications, 1st ed., I. Obeid, I. Selesnick, and J. Picone, Eds. New York, New York, USA: Springer, 2020, pp. 233–274. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-36844-9_8. [4] “CFM Olympic Brainz Monitor.” [Online]. Available: https://newborncare.natus.com/products-services/newborn-care-products/newborn-brain-injury/cfm-olympic-brainz-monitor. [Accessed: 17-Jul-2020]. [5] M. L. Scheuer, S. B. Wilson, A. Antony, G. Ghearing, A. Urban, and A. I. Bagic, “Seizure Detection: Interreader Agreement and Detection Algorithm Assessments Using a Large Dataset,” J. Clin. Neurophysiol., 2020. https://doi.org/10.1097/WNP.0000000000000709. [6] A. Harati, M. Golmohammadi, S. Lopez, I. Obeid, and J. Picone, “Improved EEG Event Classification Using Differential Energy,” in Proceedings of the IEEE Signal Processing in Medicine and Biology Symposium, 2015, pp. 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1109/SPMB.2015.7405421. [7] V. Shah, C. Campbell, I. Obeid, and J. Picone, “Improved Spatio-Temporal Modeling in Automated Seizure Detection using Channel-Dependent Posteriors,” Neurocomputing, 2021. [8] W. Tatum, A. Husain, S. Benbadis, and P. Kaplan, Handbook of EEG Interpretation. New York City, New York, USA: Demos Medical Publishing, 2007. [9] D. P. Bovet and C. Marco, Understanding the Linux Kernel, 3rd ed. O’Reilly Media, Inc., 2005. https://www.oreilly.com/library/view/understanding-the-linux/0596005652/. [10] V. Shah et al., “The Temple University Hospital Seizure Detection Corpus,” Front. Neuroinform., vol. 12, pp. 1–6, 2018. https://doi.org/10.3389/fninf.2018.00083. [11] F. Pedregosa et al., “Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in Python,” J. Mach. Learn. Res., vol. 12, pp. 2825–2830, 2011. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/1953048.2078195. [12] J. Gotman, D. Flanagan, J. Zhang, and B. Rosenblatt, “Automatic seizure detection in the newborn: Methods and initial evaluation,” Electroencephalogr. Clin. Neurophysiol., vol. 103, no. 3, pp. 356–362, 1997. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0013-4694(97)00003-9. 

   more » « less