skip to main content

Attention:

The NSF Public Access Repository (NSF-PAR) system and access will be unavailable from 11:00 PM ET on Thursday, May 23 until 2:00 AM ET on Friday, May 24 due to maintenance. We apologize for the inconvenience.


Title: Optimizing Cryptography in Energy Harvesting Applications
The Internet of Things will need to support ubiquitous and continuous connectivity to resource constrained and energy constrained devices. To this end, we consider the optimization of cryptographic protocols under energy harvesting conditions. Traditionally, computing using energy harvesting power sources is handled as a case of intermittent-computing: working towards the completion of a goal under uncertain energy supply. In our work we consider the often ignored case when there is harvested energy available but there are no useful operations to complete. In cryptographic protocols, this can occur while the protocol waits for the next message. To avoid waste, we partition cryptographic algorithms into an offline portion and an online portion, where only the online portion has a real-time dependency to the availability of data. The offline portion is precomputed with the result stored as a coupon for the remaining online operation. We show that this structure brings multiple benefits including decreased response latency, a smaller energy store requirement, and reduced energy waste in a harvester supported system. We present a case study of two canonical cryptographic applications: true random number generation and bulk-encryption. We analyze the precomputed implementations on an MSP430 with ferroelectric RAM and an ARM Cortex M4 with nonvolatile flash memory. Our solutions avoid energy waste during the offline phase, and they offer gains in energy efficiency during the online phase of up to 57 times for bulk-encryption and over 100 times for random number generation.  more » « less
Award ID(s):
1704176
NSF-PAR ID:
10072815
Author(s) / Creator(s):
; ;
Date Published:
Journal Name:
2017 Workshop on Attacks and Solutions in Hardware Security (ASHES)
Page Range / eLocation ID:
17 to 26
Format(s):
Medium: X
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. 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
  2. null (Ed.)
    Molecular dynamics simulations often classically evolve the nuclear geometry on adiabatic potential energy surfaces (PESs), punctuated by random hops between energy levels in regions of strong coupling, in an algorithm known as surface hopping. However, the computational expense of integrating the geometry on a full-dimensional PES and computing the required couplings can quickly become prohibitive as the number of atoms increases. In this work, we describe a method for surface hopping that uses only important reaction coordinates, performs all expensive evaluations of the true PESs and couplings only once before simulating dynamics (offline), and then queries the stored values during the surface hopping simulation (online). Our Python codes are freely available on GitHub. Using photodissociation of azomethane as a test case, this method is able to reproduce experimental results that have thus far eluded ab initio surface hopping studies. 
    more » « less
  3. Mazurek, Michelle L ; Sherr, Micah. (Ed.)

    This work presents RPM, a scalable anonymous communication protocol suite using secure multiparty computation (MPC) with the offline-online model. We generate random, unknown permutation matrices in a secret-shared fashion and achieve improved (online) performance and the lightest communication and computation overhead for the clients compared to the state of art robust anonymous communication protocols. Using square-lattice shuffling, we make our protocol scale well as the number of clients increases. We provide three protocol variants, each targeting different input volumes and MPC frameworks/libraries. Besides, due to the modular design, our protocols can be easily generalized to support more MPC functionalities and security properties as they get developed. We also illustrate how to generalize our protocols to support two-way anonymous communication and secure sorting. We have implemented our protocols using the MP-SPDZ library suit and the benchmark illustrates that our protocols achieve unprecedented online phase performance with practical offline phases.

     
    more » « less
  4. We consider the problem of subset selection in the online setting, where data arrive incrementally. Instead of storing and running subset selection on the entire dataset, we propose an incremental subset selection framework that, at each time instant, uses the previously selected set of representatives and the new batch of data in order to update the set of representatives. We cast the problem as an integer bi- nary optimization minimizing the encoding cost of the data via representatives regularized by the number of selected items. As the proposed optimization is, in general, NP-hard and non-convex, we study a greedy approach based on un- constrained submodular optimization and also propose an efficient convex relaxation. We show that, under appropriate conditions, the solution of our proposed convex algorithm achieves the global optimal solution of the non-convex problem. Our results also address the conventional problem of subset selection in the offline setting, as a special case. By extensive experiments on the problem of video summarization, we demonstrate that our proposed online subset selection algorithms perform well on real data, capturing diverse representative events in videos, while they obtain objective function values close to the offline setting. 
    more » « less
  5. null (Ed.)
    Maximal Independent Set (MIS) is one of the fundamental problems in distributed computing. The round (time) complexity of distributed MIS has traditionally focused on the worst-case time for all nodes to finish. The best-known (randomized) MIS algorithms take O(log n) worst-case rounds on general graphs (where n is the number of nodes). Breaking the O(log n) worst-case bound has been a longstanding open problem, while currently the best-known lower bound is [EQUATION] rounds. Motivated by the goal to reduce total energy consumption in energy-constrained networks such as sensor and ad hoc wireless networks, we take an alternative approach to measuring performance. We focus on minimizing the total (or equivalently, the average) time for all nodes to finish. It is not clear whether the currently best-known algorithms yield constant-round (or even o(log n)) node-averaged round complexity for MIS in general graphs. We posit the sleeping model, a generalization of the traditional model, that allows nodes to enter either "sleep" or "waking" states at any round. While waking state corresponds to the default state in the traditional model, in sleeping state a node is "offline", i.e., it does not send or receive messages (and messages sent to it are dropped as well) and does not incur any time, communication, or local computation cost. Hence, in this model, only rounds in which a node is awake are counted and we are interested in minimizing the average as well as the worst-case number of rounds a node spends in the awake state, besides the traditional worst-case round complexity (i.e., the rounds for all nodes to finish including both the awake and sleeping rounds). Our main result is that we show that MIS can be solved in (expected) O(1) rounds under node-averaged awake complexity measure in the sleeping model. In particular, we present a randomized distributed algorithm for MIS that has expected O(1)-rounds node-averaged awake complexity and, with high probability1 has O(log n)-rounds worst-case awake complexity and O(log3.41 n)-rounds worst-case complexity. Our work is a step towards understanding the node-averaged complexity of MIS both in the traditional and sleeping models, as well as designing energy-efficient distributed algorithms for energy-constrained networks. 
    more » « less