skip to main content


Title: Iterative Sampled Methods for Massive and Separable Nonlinear Inverse Problems
In this paper, we consider iterative methods based on sampling for computing solutions to separable nonlinear inverse problems where the entire dataset cannot be accessed or is not available all-at-once. In such scenarios (e.g., when massive amounts of data exceed memory capabilities or when data is being streamed), solving inverse problems, especially nonlinear ones, can be very challenging. We focus on separable nonlinear problems, where the objective function is nonlinear in one (typically small) set of parameters and linear in another (larger) set of parameters. For the linear problem, we describe a limited-memory sampled Tikhonov method, and for the nonlinear problem, we describe an approach to integrate the limited-memory sampled Tikhonov method within a nonlinear optimization framework. The proposed method is computationally efficient in that it only uses available data at any iteration to update both sets of parameters. Numerical experiments applied to massive super-resolution image reconstruction problems show the power of these methods.  more » « less
Award ID(s):
1654175 1723005
NSF-PAR ID:
10108292
Author(s) / Creator(s):
Date Published:
Journal Name:
Scale Space and Variational Methods in Computer Vision. SSVM 2019. Lecture Notes in Computer Science
Volume:
11603
Format(s):
Medium: X
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. Abstract We consider Bayesian inference for large-scale inverse problems, where computational challenges arise from the need for repeated evaluations of an expensive forward model. This renders most Markov chain Monte Carlo approaches infeasible, since they typically require O ( 1 0 4 ) model runs, or more. Moreover, the forward model is often given as a black box or is impractical to differentiate. Therefore derivative-free algorithms are highly desirable. We propose a framework, which is built on Kalman methodology, to efficiently perform Bayesian inference in such inverse problems. The basic method is based on an approximation of the filtering distribution of a novel mean-field dynamical system, into which the inverse problem is embedded as an observation operator. Theoretical properties are established for linear inverse problems, demonstrating that the desired Bayesian posterior is given by the steady state of the law of the filtering distribution of the mean-field dynamical system, and proving exponential convergence to it. This suggests that, for nonlinear problems which are close to Gaussian, sequentially computing this law provides the basis for efficient iterative methods to approximate the Bayesian posterior. Ensemble methods are applied to obtain interacting particle system approximations of the filtering distribution of the mean-field model; and practical strategies to further reduce the computational and memory cost of the methodology are presented, including low-rank approximation and a bi-fidelity approach. The effectiveness of the framework is demonstrated in several numerical experiments, including proof-of-concept linear/nonlinear examples and two large-scale applications: learning of permeability parameters in subsurface flow; and learning subgrid-scale parameters in a global climate model. Moreover, the stochastic ensemble Kalman filter and various ensemble square-root Kalman filters are all employed and are compared numerically. The results demonstrate that the proposed method, based on exponential convergence to the filtering distribution of a mean-field dynamical system, is competitive with pre-existing Kalman-based methods for inverse problems. 
    more » « less
  2. This paper presents a regularization framework that aims to improve the fidelity of Tikhonov inverse solutions. At the heart of the framework is the data-informed regularization idea that only data-uninformed parameters need to be regularized, while the data-informed parameters, on which data and forward model are integrated, should remain untouched. We propose to employ the active subspace method to determine the data-informativeness of a parameter. The resulting framework is thus called a data-informed (DI) active subspace (DIAS) regularization. Four proposed DIAS variants are rigorously analyzed, shown to be robust with the regularization parameter and capable of avoiding polluting solution features informed by the data. They are thus well suited for problems with small or reasonably small noise corruptions in the data. Furthermore, the DIAS approaches can effectively reuse any Tikhonov regularization codes/libraries. Though they are readily applicable for nonlinear inverse problems, we focus on linear problems in this paper in order to gain insights into the framework. Various numerical results for linear inverse problems are presented to verify theoretical findings and to demonstrate advantages of the DIAS framework over the Tikhonov, truncated SVD, and the TSVD-based DI approaches. 
    more » « less
  3. 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
  4. This article presents a numerical strategy for actively manipulating electromagnetic (EM) fields in layered media. In particular, we develop a scheme to characterize an EM source that will generate some predetermined field patterns in prescribed disjoint exterior regions in layered media. The proposed question of specifying such an EM source is not an inverse source problem (ISP) since the existence of a solution is not guaranteed. Moreover, our problem allows for the possibility of prescribing different EM fields in mutually disjoint exterior regions. This question involves a linear inverse problem that requires solving a severely ill-posed optimization problem (i.e. suffering from possible non-existence or non-uniqueness of a solution). The forward operator is defined by expressing the EM fields as a function of the current at the source using the layered media Green’s function (LMGF), accounting for the physical parameters of the layered media. This results to integral equations that are then discretized using the method of moments (MoM), yielding an illposed system of linear equations. Unlike in ISPs, stability with respect to data is not an issue here since no data is measured. Rather, stability with respect to input current approximation is important. To get such stable solutions, we applied two regularization methods, namely, the truncated singular value decomposition (TSVD) method and the Tikhonov regularization method with the Morozov Discrepancy Principle. We performed several numerical simulations to support the theoretical framework and analyzes, and to demonstrate the accuracy and feasibility of the proposed numerical algorithms. 
    more » « less
  5. null (Ed.)
    We consider a regression problem, where the correspondence between the input and output data is not available. Such shuffled data are commonly observed in many real world problems. Take flow cytometry as an example: the measuring instruments are unable to preserve the correspondence between the samples and the measurements. Due to the combinatorial nature of the problem, most of the existing methods are only applicable when the sample size is small, and are limited to linear regression models. To overcome such bottlenecks, we propose a new computational framework --- ROBOT --- for the shuffled regression problem, which is applicable to large data and complex models. Specifically, we propose to formulate regression without correspondence as a continuous optimization problem. Then by exploiting the interaction between the regression model and the data correspondence, we propose to develop a hypergradient approach based on differentiable programming techniques. Such a hypergradient approach essentially views the data correspondence as an operator of the regression model, and therefore it allows us to find a better descent direction for the model parameters by differentiating through the data correspondence. ROBOT is quite general, and can be further extended to an inexact correspondence setting, where the input and output data are not necessarily exactly aligned. Thorough numerical experiments show that ROBOT achieves better performance than existing methods in both linear and nonlinear regression tasks, including real-world applications such as flow cytometry and multi-object tracking. 
    more » « less