Mobile vision systems would benefit from the ability to situationally sacrifice image resolution to save system energy when imaging detail is unnecessary. Unfortunately, any change in sensor resolution leads to a substantial pause in frame delivery -- as much as 280 ms. Frame delivery is bottlenecked by a sequence of reconfiguration procedures and memory management in current operating systems before it resumes at the new resolution. This latency from reconfiguration impedes the adoption of otherwise beneficial resolution-energy tradeoff mechanisms. We propose Banner as a media framework that provides a rapid sensor resolution reconfiguration service as a modification to common media frameworks, e.g., V4L2. Banner completely eliminates the frame-to-frame reconfiguration latency (226 ms to 33 ms), i.e., removing the frame drop during sensor resolution reconfiguration. Banner also halves the end-to-end resolution reconfiguration latency (226 ms to 105 ms). This enables a more than 49% reduction of system power consumption by allowing continuous vision applications to reconfigure the sensor resolution to 480p compared with downsampling from 1080p to 480p, as measured in a cloud-based offloading workload running on a Jetson TX2 board. As a result, Banner unlocks unprecedented capabilities for mobile vision applications to dynamically reconfigure sensor resolutions to balance the energy efficiency and task accuracy tradeoff.
more »
« less
Characterizing the Reconfiguration Latency of Image Sensor Resolution on Android Devices
Advances in vision processing have ignited a proliferation of mobile vision applications, including augmented reality. However, limited by the inability to rapidly reconfigure sensor operation for performance-efficiency tradeoffs, high power consumption causes vision applications to drain the device's battery. To explore the potential impact of enabling rapid reconfiguration, we use a case study around marker-based pose estimation to understand the relationship between image frame resolution, task accuracy, and energy efficiency. Our case study motivates that to balance energy efficiency and task accuracy, the application needs to dynamically and frequently reconfigure sensor resolution.
To explore the latency bottlenecks to sensor resolution reconfiguration, we define and profile the end-to-end reconfiguration latency and frame-to-frame latency of changing capture resolution on a Google LG Nexus 5X device. We identify three major sources of sensor resolution reconfiguration latency in current Android systems: (i) sequential configuration patterns, (ii) expensive system calls, and (iii) imaging pipeline delay. Based on our intuitions, we propose a redesign of the Android camera system to mitigate the sources of latency. Enabling smooth transitions between sensor configurations will unlock new classes of adaptive-resolution vision applications.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 1657602
- NSF-PAR ID:
- 10084384
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Proceedings of the 19th International Workshop on Mobile Computing Systems & Applications - HotMobile '18
- Page Range / eLocation ID:
- 81 to 86
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
Energy-efficient visual sensing is of paramount importance to enable battery-backed low power IoT and mobile applications. Unfortunately, modern image sensors still consume hundreds of milliwatts of power, mainly due to analog readout. This is because current systems always supply a fixed voltage to the sensor’s analog circuitry, leading to higher power profiles. In this work, we propose to aggressively scale the analog voltage supplied to the camera as a means to significantly reduce sensor power consumption. To that end, we characterize the power and fidelity implications of analog voltage scaling on three off-the-shelf image sensors. Our characterization reveals that analog voltage scaling reduces sensor power but also degrades image quality. Furthermore, the degradation in image quality situationally affects the task accuracy of vision applications. We develop a visual streaming pipeline that flexibly allows application developers to dynamically adapt sensor voltage on a frame-by-frame basis. We develop a voltage controller that programmatically generates desired sensor voltage based on application request. We integrate our voltage controller into the existing RPi-based video streaming IoT pipeline. On top of this, we develop runtime support for flexible voltage specification from vision applications. Evaluating the system over a wide range of voltage scaling policies on popular vision tasks reveals that Squint imaging can deliver up to 73% sensor power savings, while maintaining reasonable task fidelity. Our artifacts are available at: https://gitlab.com/squint1/squint-ae-publicmore » « 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
-
null (Ed.)High spatiotemporal resolution can offer high precision for vision applications, which is particularly useful to capture the nuances of visual features, such as for augmented reality. Unfortunately, capturing and processing high spatiotemporal visual frames generates energy-expensive memory traffic. On the other hand, low resolution frames can reduce pixel memory throughput, but reduce also the opportunities of high-precision visual sensing. However, our intuition is that not all parts of the scene need to be captured at a uniform resolution. Selectively and opportunistically reducing resolution for different regions of image frames can yield high-precision visual computing at energy-efficient memory data rates. To this end, we develop a visual sensing pipeline architecture that flexibly allows application developers to dynamically adapt the spatial resolution and update rate of different “rhythmic pixel regions” in the scene. We develop a system that ingests pixel streams from commercial image sensors with their standard raster-scan pixel read-out patterns, but only encodes relevant pixels prior to storing them in the memory. We also present streaming hardware to decode the stored rhythmic pixel region stream into traditional frame-based representations to feed into standard computer vision algorithms. We integrate our encoding and decoding hardware modules into existing video pipelines. On top of this, we develop runtime support allowing developers to flexibly specify the region labels. Evaluating our system on a Xilinx FPGA platform over three vision workloads shows 43 − 64% reduction in interface traffic and memory footprint, while providing controllable task accuracy.more » « less
-
more » « less
Abstract Recent advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) have seen the emergence of smart video surveillance (SVS) in many practical applications, particularly for building safer and more secure communities in our urban environments. Cognitive tasks, such as identifying objects, recognizing actions, and detecting anomalous behaviors, can produce data capable of providing valuable insights to the community through statistical and analytical tools. However, artificially intelligent surveillance systems design requires special considerations for ethical challenges and concerns. The use and storage of personally identifiable information (PII) commonly pose an increased risk to personal privacy. To address these issues, this paper identifies the privacy concerns and requirements needed to address when designing AI-enabled smart video surveillance. Further, we propose the first end-to-end AI-enabled privacy-preserving smart video surveillance system that holistically combines computer vision analytics, statistical data analytics, cloud-native services, and end-user applications. Finally, we propose quantitative and qualitative metrics to evaluate intelligent video surveillance systems. The system shows the 17.8 frame-per-second (FPS) processing in extreme video scenes. However, considering privacy in designing such a system results in preferring the pose-based algorithm to the pixel-based one. This choice resulted in dropping accuracy in both action and anomaly detection tasks. The results drop from 97.48% to 73.72% in anomaly detection and 96% to 83.07% in the action detection task. On average, the latency of the end-to-end system is 36.1 seconds.
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Conference Paper:
- https://doi.org/10.1145/3177102.3177109
