The problem of localizing a moving target arises in various forms in wireless sensor networks. Deploying multiple sensing receivers and using the time-difference-of-arrival (TDOA) of the target’s emitted signal is widely considered an effective localization technique. Traditionally, TDOA-based algorithms adopt a centralized approach where all measurements are sent to a predefined reference node for position estimation. More recently, distributed TDOA-based localization algorithms have been shown to improve the robustness of these estimates. For target models governed by highly stochastic processes, the method of nonlinear filtering and state estimation must be carefully considered. In this work, a distributed TDOA-based particle filter algorithm is proposed for localizing a moving target modeled by a discrete-time correlated random walk (DCRW). We present a method for using data collected by the particle filter to estimate the unknown probability distributions of the target’s movement model, and then apply the distribution estimates to recursively update the particle filter’s propagation model. The performance of the distributed approach is evaluated through numerical simulation, and we show the benefit of using a particle filter with online model learning by comparing it with the non-adaptive approach.
Continuous Estimation Using Context-Dependent Discrete Measurements
This paper considers the problem of continuous state estimation from discrete context-based measurements. Context measurements provide binary information as obtained from the system’s environment, e.g., a medical alarm indicating that a vital sign is above a certain threshold. Since they provide state infor- mation, these measurements can be used for estimation purposes, similar to standard continuous measurements, especially when standard sensors are biased or attacked. Context measurements are assumed to have a known probability of occurring given the state; in particular, we focus on the probit function to model threshold-based measurements such as the medical-alarm scenario. We develop a recursive context-aware filter by approx- imating the posterior distribution with a Gaussian distribution with the same first two moments as the true posterior. We show that the filter’s expected uncertainty is bounded when the probability of receiving context measurements is lower-bounded by some positive number for all system states. Furthermore, we provide an observability-like result – all eigenvalues of the filter’s covariance matrix converge to 0 after repeated updates if and only if a persistence of excitation condition holds for the context measurements. Finally, in addition to simulation evaluations, we applied the filter to the problem of estimating a patient’s blood oxygen content during surgery using real-patient data.
more »
« less
- NSF-PAR ID:
- 10056954
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control
- ISSN:
- 0018-9286
- Page Range / eLocation ID:
- 1 to 1
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
null (Ed.)more » « less
Abstract -
Abstract Particle filters avoid parametric estimates for Bayesian posterior densities, which alleviates Gaussian assumptions in nonlinear regimes. These methods, however, are more sensitive to sampling errors than Gaussian-based techniques such as ensemble Kalman filters. A recent study by the authors introduced an iterative strategy for particle filters that match posterior moments—where iterations improve the filter’s ability to draw samples from non-Gaussian posterior densities. The iterations follow from a factorization of particle weights, providing a natural framework for combining particle filters with alternative filters to mitigate the impact of sampling errors. The current study introduces a novel approach to forming an adaptive hybrid data assimilation methodology, exploiting the theoretical strengths of nonparametric and parametric filters. At each data assimilation cycle, the iterative particle filter performs a sequence of updates while the prior sample distribution is non-Gaussian, then an ensemble Kalman filter provides the final adjustment when Gaussian distributions for marginal quantities are detected. The method employs the Shapiro–Wilk test to determine when to make the transition between filter algorithms, which has outstanding power for detecting departures from normality. Experiments using low-dimensional models demonstrate that the approach has a significant value, especially for nonhomogeneous observation networks and unknown model process errors. Moreover, hybrid factors are extended to consider marginals of more than one collocated variables using a test for multivariate normality. Findings from this study motivate the use of the proposed method for geophysical problems characterized by diverse observation networks and various dynamic instabilities, such as numerical weather prediction models. Significance Statement Data assimilation statistically processes observation errors and model forecast errors to provide optimal initial conditions for the forecast, playing a critical role in numerical weather forecasting. The ensemble Kalman filter, which has been widely adopted and developed in many operational centers, assumes Gaussianity of the prior distribution and solves a linear system of equations, leading to bias in strong nonlinear regimes. On the other hand, particle filters avoid many of those assumptions but are sensitive to sampling errors and are computationally expensive. We propose an adaptive hybrid strategy that combines their advantages and minimizes the disadvantages of the two methods. The hybrid particle filter–ensemble Kalman filter is achieved with the Shapiro–Wilk test to detect the Gaussianity of the ensemble members and determine the timing of the transition between these filter updates. Demonstrations in this study show that the proposed method is advantageous when observations are heterogeneous and when the model has an unknown bias. Furthermore, by extending the statistical hypothesis test to the test for multivariate normality, we consider marginals of more than one collocated variable. These results encourage further testing for real geophysical problems characterized by various dynamic instabilities, such as real numerical weather prediction models.more » « less
-
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
-
more » « less
Summary A Bernstein prior is a probability measure on the space of all the distribution functions on [0, 1]. Under very general assumptions, it selects absolutely continuous distribution functions, whose densities are mixtures of known beta densities. The Bernstein prior is of interest in Bayesian nonparametric inference with continuous data. We study the consistency of the posterior from a Bernstein prior. We first show that, under mild assumptions, the posterior is weakly consistent for any distribution function P0 on [0, 1] with continuous and bounded Lebesgue density. With slightly stronger assumptions on the prior, the posterior is also Hellinger consistent. This implies that the predictive density from a Bernstein prior, which is a Bayesian density estimate, converges in the Hellinger sense to the true density (assuming that it is continuous and bounded). We also study a sieve maximum likelihood version of the density estimator and show that it is also Hellinger consistent under weak assumptions. When the order of the Bernstein polynomial, i.e. the number of components in the beta distribution mixture, is truncated, we show that under mild restrictions the posterior concentrates on the set of pseudotrue densities. Finally, we study the behaviour of the predictive density numerically and we also study a hybrid Bayes–maximum likelihood density estimator.
-
This paper contributes to the emerging viewpoint that governing equations for dynamic state estimation, conditioned on the history of noisy measurements, can be viewed as gradient flow on the manifold of joint probability density functions with respect to suitable metrics. Herein, we focus on the Wonham filter where the prior dynamics is given by a continuous time Markov chain on a finite state space; the measurement model includes noisy observation of the (possibly nonlinear function of) state. We establish that the posterior flow given by the Wonham filter can be viewed as the small time-step limit of proximal recursions of certain functionals on the probability simplex. The results of this paper extend our earlier work where similar proximal recursions were derived for the Kalman-Bucy filter.more » « less
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Journal Article:
- https://doi.org/10.1109/TAC.2018.2797839
