More Like this

1. Fast Detection of Open Circuit Device Faults and Fault Tolerant Operation of Stacked Multilevel Converters

   https://doi.org/10.1109/APEC.2019.8721923  

   Hekmati, Parham ; Brown, Ian P. ; Shen, Z. John ( March 2019 , 2019 IEEE Applied Power Electronics Conference and Exposition (APEC))

   This paper proposes a simple and fast technique for power device open circuit (OC) fault detection in stacked multicell converters (SMCs). A mitigation technique allowing for fault-tolerant operation using a simple front-end routing circuit is also proposed for SMCs. The fault detection concept only needs to sense the voltage and direction of current at the output terminal of the SMC to detect and localize an OC switch fault to a particular rail of the SMC. The proposed technique compares the measured and expected voltage levels considering the commanded switch states and the direction of the terminal current flow. Once an OC fault is detected and localized, the front-end routing circuit will be activated to reconfigure the SMC converter to a simple flying capacitor multilevel converter (FCMC) to maintain the output power flow with a reduced number of voltage levels. A window detector circuit is proposed to track the output voltage level and current direction with high bandwidth. Simulations were performed to validate the fault detection method and router performance. The functionality of windows detector is investigated with a hardware prototype 7 level 300 V SMC.
2. Solar energy management as an Internet of Things (IoT) application

   https://doi.org/10.1109/IISA.2017.8316460  

   Spanias, Andreas S. ( August 2017 , 2017 IEEE 8th International Conference on Information, Intelligence, Systems & Applications (IISA))

   Photovoltaic (PV) array analytics and control have become necessary for remote solar farms and for intelligent fault detection and power optimization. The management of a PV array requires auxiliary electronics that are attached to each solar panel. A collaborative industry-university-government project was established to create a smart monitoring device (SMD) and establish associated algorithms and software for fault detection and solar array management. First generation smart monitoring devices (SMDs) were built in Japan. At the same time, Arizona State University initiated research in algorithms and software to monitor and control individual solar panels. Second generation SMDs were developed later and included sensors for monitoring voltage, current, temperature, and irradiance at each individual panel. The latest SMDs include a radio and relays which allow modifying solar array connection topologies. With each panel equipped with such a sophisticated SMD, solar panels in a PV array behave essentially as nodes in an Internet of Things (IoT) type of topology. This solar energy IoT system is currently programmable and can: a) provide mobile analytics, b) enable solar farm control, c) detect and remedy faults, d) optimize power under different shading conditions, and e) reduce inverter transients. A series of federal and industry grants sponsoredmore »research on statistical signal analysis, communications, and optimization of this system. A Cyber-Physical project, whose aim is to improve solar array efficiency and robustness using new machine learning and imaging methods, was launched recently« less
3. 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 EEGmore »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.« less
4. Cyber Attack and Defense for Smart Inverters in a Distribution System

   Sun, C. C. ; Zhu, R. ; Liu, C. C. ( June 2019 , CIGRE Study Committee D2 Colloquium, Helsinki, Finland)

   The fast-growing installation of solar PVs has a significant impact on the operation of distribution systems. Grid-tied solar inverters provide reactive power capability to support the voltage profile in a distribution system. In comparison with traditional inverters, smart inverters have the capability of real time remote control through digital communication interfaces. However, cyberattack has become a major threat with the deployment of Information and Communications Technology (ICT) in a smart grid. The past cyberattack incidents have demonstrated how attackers can sabotage a power grid through digital communication systems. In the worst case, numerous electricity consumers can experience a major and extended power outage. Unfortunately, tracking techniques are not efficient for today’s advanced communication networks. Therefore, a reliable cyber protection system is a necessary defense tool for the power grid. In this paper, a signature-based Intrusion Detection System (IDS) is developed to detect cyber intrusions of a distribution system with a high level penetration of solar energy. To identify cyberattack events, an attack table is constructed based on the Temporal Failure Propagation Graph (TFPG) technique. It includes the information of potential cyberattack patterns in terms of attack types and time sequence of anomaly events. Once the detected anomaly events are matchedmore »with any of the predefined attack patterns, it is judged to be a cyberattack. Since the attack patterns are distinguishable from other system failures, it reduces the false positive rate. To study the impact of cyberattacks on solar devices and validate the performance of the proposed IDS, a realistic Cyber-Physical System (CPS) simulation environment available at Virginia Tech (VT) is used to develop an interconnection between the cyber and power system models. The CPS model demonstrates how communication system anomalies can impact the physical system. The results of two example cyberattack test cases are obtained with the IEEE 13 node test feeder system and the power system simulator, DIgSILENT PowerFactory.« less
5. Fault Injection Attacks in Spiking Neural Networks and Countermeasures

   https://doi.org/10.3389/fnano.2021.801999  

   Nagarajan, Karthikeyan ; Li, Junde ; Ensan, Sina Sayyah ; Kannan, Sachhidh ; Ghosh, Swaroop ( January 2022 , Frontiers in Nanotechnology)

   Spiking Neural Networks (SNN) are fast emerging as an alternative option to Deep Neural Networks (DNN). They are computationally more powerful and provide higher energy-efficiency than DNNs. While exciting at first glance, SNNs contain security-sensitive assets (e.g., neuron threshold voltage) and vulnerabilities (e.g., sensitivity of classification accuracy to neuron threshold voltage change) that can be exploited by the adversaries. We explore global fault injection attacks using external power supply and laser-induced local power glitches on SNN designed using common analog neurons to corrupt critical training parameters such as spike amplitude and neuron’s membrane threshold potential. We also analyze the impact of power-based attacks on the SNN for digit classification task and observe a worst-case classification accuracy degradation of −85.65%. We explore the impact of various design parameters of SNN (e.g., learning rate, spike trace decay constant, and number of neurons) and identify design choices for robust implementation of SNN. We recover classification accuracy degradation by 30–47% for a subset of power-based attacks by modifying SNN training parameters such as learning rate, trace decay constant, and neurons per layer. We also propose hardware-level defenses, e.g., a robust current driver design that is immune to power-oriented attacks, improved circuit sizing of neuronmore »components to reduce/recover the adversarial accuracy degradation at the cost of negligible area, and 25% power overhead. We also propose a dummy neuron-based detection of voltage fault injection at ∼1% power and area overhead each.« less