More Like this

1. Flexible and scalable annotation tool to develop scene understanding datasets

   https://doi.org/10.1145/3546930.3547499  

   Elahi, Md Fazle ; Tian, Renran ; Luo, Xiao ( June 2022 , Workshop on Human-In-the-Loop Data Analytics (HILDA ’22))

   Recent progress in data-driven vision and language-based tasks demands developing training datasets enriched with multiple modalities representing human intelligence. The link between text and image data is one of the crucial modalities for developing AI models. The development process of such datasets in the video domain requires much effort from researchers and annotators (experts and non-experts). Researchers re-design annotation tools to extract knowledge from annotators to answer new research questions. The whole process repeats for each new question which is timeconsuming. However, since the last decade, there has been little change in how the researchers and annotators interact with the annotation process. We revisit the annotation workflow and propose a concept of an adaptable and scalable annotation tool. The concept emphasizes its users’ interactivity to make annotation process design seamless and efficient. Researchers can conveniently add newer modalities to or augment the extant datasets using the tool. The annotators can efficiently link free-form text to image objects. For conducting human-subject experiments on any scale, the tool supports the data collection for attaining group ground truth. We have conducted a case study using a prototype tool between two groups with the participation of 74 non-expert people. We find that the interactive linking of free-form text to image objects feels intuitive and evokes a thought process resulting in a high-quality annotation. The new design shows ≈ 35% improvement in the data annotation quality. On UX evaluation, we receive above-average positive feedback from 25 people regarding convenience, UI assistance, usability, and satisfaction. 

   more » « less
2. 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
3. Twitter-Based Knowledge Graph for Researchers

   Vincent, Kyle ; Meno, Emma ( May 2020 , Virginia tech)

   null (Ed.)

   The Twitter-Based Knowledge Graph for Researchers project is an effort to construct a knowledge graph of computation-based tasks and corresponding outputs. It will be utilized by subject matter experts, statisticians, and developers. A knowledge graph is a directed graph of knowledge accumulated from a variety of sources. For our application, Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) are experts in their respective non-computer science fields, but are not necessarily experienced with running heavy computation on datasets. As a result, they find it difficult to generate workflows for their projects involving Twitter data and advanced analysis. Workflow management systems and libraries that facilitate computation are only practical when the users of these systems understand what analysis they need to perform. Our goal is to bridge this gap in understanding. Our queryable knowledge graph will generate a visual workflow for these experts and researchers to achieve their project goals. After meeting with our client, we established two primary deliverables. First, we needed to create an ontology of all Twitter-related information that an SME might want to answer. Secondly, we needed to build a knowledge graph based on this ontology and produce a set of APIs to trigger a set of network algorithms based on the information queried to the graph. An ontology is simply the class structure/schema for the graph. Throughout future meetings, we established some more specific additional requirements. Most importantly, the client stressed that users should be able to bring their own data and add it to our knowledge graph. As more research is completed and new technologies are released, it will be important to be able to edit and add to the knowledge graph. Next, we must be able to provide metrics about the data itself. These metrics will be useful for both our own work, and future research surrounding graph search problems and search optimization. Additionally, our system should provide users with information regarding the original domain that the algorithms and workflows were run against. That way they can choose the best workflow for their data. The project team first conducted a literature review, reading reports from the CS5604 Information Retrieval courses in 2016 and 2017 to extract information related to Twitter data and algorithms. This information was used to construct our raw ontology in Google Sheets, which contained a set of dataset-algorithm-dataset tuples. The raw ontology was then converted into nodes and edges csv files for building the knowledge graph. After implementing our original solution on a CentOS virtual machine hosted by the Virginia Tech Department of Computer Science, we transitioned our solution to Grakn, an open-source knowledge graph database that supports hypergraph functionality. When finalizing our workflow paths, we noted some nodes depended on completion of two or more inputs, representing an ”AND” edge. This phenomenon is modeled as a hyperedge with Grakn, initiating our transition from Neo4J to Grakn. Currently, our system supports queries through the console, where a user can type a Graql statement to retrieve information about data in the graph, from relationships to entities to derived rules. The user can also interact with the data via Grakn's data visualizer: Workbase. The user can enter Graql queries to visualize connections within the knowledge graph. 

   more » « less
4. Two provably consistent divide-and-conquer clustering algorithms for large networks

   https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2100482118  

   Mukherjee, Soumendu Sundar ; Sarkar, Purnamrita ; Bickel, Peter J. ( October 2021 , Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences)

   In this article, we advance divide-and-conquer strategies for solving the community detection problem in networks. We propose two algorithms that perform clustering on several small subgraphs and finally patch the results into a single clustering. The main advantage of these algorithms is that they significantly bring down the computational cost of traditional algorithms, including spectral clustering, semidefinite programs, modularity-based methods, likelihood-based methods, etc., without losing accuracy, and even improving accuracy at times. These algorithms are also, by nature, parallelizable. Since most traditional algorithms are accurate, and the corresponding optimization problems are much simpler in small problems, our divide-and-conquer methods provide an omnibus recipe for scaling traditional algorithms up to large networks. We prove the consistency of these algorithms under various subgraph selection procedures and perform extensive simulations and real-data analysis to understand the advantages of the divide-and-conquer approach in various settings.

    

   more » « less
5. Knowledge Authoring for Rules and Actions

   https://doi.org/10.1017/S1471068423000169  

   WANG, YUHENG ; FODOR, PAUL ; KIFER, MICHAEL ( July 2023 , Theory and Practice of Logic Programming)

   Knowledge representation and reasoning (KRR) systems describe and reason with complex concepts and relations in the form of facts and rules. Unfortunately, wide deployment of KRR systems runs into the problem that domain experts have great difficulty constructing correct logical representations of their domain knowledge. Knowledge engineers can help with this construction process, but there is a deficit of such specialists. The earlier Knowledge Authoring Logic Machine (KALM) based on Controlled Natural Language (CNL) was shown to have very high accuracy for authoring facts and questions. More recently, KALM^FL, a successor of KALM, replaced CNL withfactualEnglish, which is much less restrictive and requires very little training from users. However, KALM^FLhas limitations in representing certain types of knowledge, such as authoring rules for multi-step reasoning or understanding actions with timestamps. To address these limitations, we propose KALM^RAto enable authoring of rules and actions. Our evaluation using the UTI guidelines benchmark shows that KALM^RAachieves a high level of correctness (100%) on rule authoring. When used for authoring and reasoning with actions, KALM^RAachieves more than 99.3% correctness on the bAbI benchmark, demonstrating its effectiveness in more sophisticated KRR jobs. Finally, we illustrate the logical reasoning capabilities of KALM^RAby drawing attention to the problems faced by the recently made famous AI, ChatGPT.

    

   more » « less