skip to main content

Title: Multi-Stream LDPC Decoder on GPU of Mobile Devices
Low-density parity check (LDPC) codes have been extensively applied in mobile communication systems due to their excellent error correcting capabilities. However, their broad adoption has been hindered by the high complexity of the LDPC decoder. Although to date, dedicated hardware has been used to implement low latency LDPC decoders, recent advancements in the architecture of mobile processors have made it possible to develop software solutions. In this paper, we propose a multi-stream LDPC decoder designed for a mobile device. The proposed decoder uses graphics processing unit (GPU) of a mobile device to achieve efficient real-time decoding. The proposed solution is implemented on an NVIDIA Tegra board as a system on a chip (SoC), where our results indicate that we can control the load on the central processing units through the multi-stream structure.
Authors:
;
Award ID(s):
1642865
Publication Date:
NSF-PAR ID:
10120656
Journal Name:
2019 IEEE 9th Annual Computing and Communication Workshop and Conference (CCWC)
Page Range or eLocation-ID:
1004 to 1009
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 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
  2. We present Quantum Belief Propagation (QBP), a Quantum Annealing (QA) based decoder design for Low Density Parity Check (LDPC) error control codes, which have found many useful applications in Wi-Fi, satellite communications, mobile cellular systems, and data storage systems. QBP reduces the LDPC decoding to a discrete optimization problem, then embeds that reduced design onto quantum annealing hardware. QBP's embedding design can support LDPC codes of block length up to 420 bits on real state-of-the-art QA hardware with 2,048 qubits. We evaluate performance on real quantum annealer hardware, performing sensitivity analyses on a variety of parameter settings. Our design achieves a bit error rate of 10--8 in 20 μs and a 1,500 byte frame error rate of 10--6 in 50 μs at SNR 9 dB over a Gaussian noise wireless channel. Further experiments measure performance over real-world wireless channels, requiring 30 μs to achieve a 1,500 byte 99.99% frame delivery rate at SNR 15-20 dB. QBP achieves a performance improvement over an FPGA based soft belief propagation LDPC decoder, by reaching a bit error rate of 10--8 and a frame error rate of 10--6 at an SNR 2.5--3.5 dB lower. In terms of limitations, QBP currently cannot realize practical protocol-sizedmore »(e.g., Wi-Fi, WiMax) LDPC codes on current QA processors. Our further studies in this work present future cost, throughput, and QA hardware trend considerations.« less
  3. In this paper, we introduce two new methods of mitigating decoder error propagation for low-latency sliding window decoding (SWD) of spatially coupled low density parity check (SC-LDPC) codes. Building on the recently introduced idea of check node (CN) doping of regular SC-LDPC codes, here we employ variable node (VN) doping to fix (set to a known value) a subset of variable nodes in the coupling chain. Both of these doping methods have the effect of allowing SWD to recover from error propagation, at a cost of a slight rate loss. Experimental results show that, similar to CN doping, VN doping improves performance by up to two orders of magnitude compared to undoped SC-LDPC codes in the typical signal-to-noise ratio operating range. Further, compared to CN doping, VN doping has the advantage of not requiring any changes to the decoding process.In addition, a log-likelihood-ratio based window extension algorithm is proposed to reduce the effect of error propagation. Using this approach, we show that decoding latency can be reduced by up to a significant fraction without suffering any loss in performance
  4. In this paper, we introduce two new methods of mitigating decoder error propagation for low-latency sliding window decoding (SWD) of spatially coupled low-density parity-check (SC-LDPC) codes. Building on the recently introduced idea of check node (CN) doping of regular SC-LDPC codes, here we employ variable node (VN) doping to fix (set to a known value) a subset of variable nodes in the coupling chain. Both of these doping methods have the effect of allowing SWD to recover from error propagation, at a cost of a slight rate loss. Experimental results show that, similar to CN doping, VN doping improves performance by up to two orders of magnitude compared to un-doped SC-LDPC codes in the typical signal-to-noise ratio operating range. Further, compared to CN doping, VN doping has the advantage of not requiring any changes to the decoding process. In addition, a log-likelihood-ratio based window extension algorithm is proposed to reduce the effect of error propagation. Using this approach, we show that decoding latency can be reduced by up to a significant fraction without suffering any loss in performance.
  5. The new 5G communications standard increases data rates and supports low-latency communication that places constraints on the computational complexity of channel decoders. 5G low-density parity-check (LDPC) codes have the so-called protograph-based raptor-like (PBRL) structure which offers inherent rate-compatibility and excellent performance. Practical LDPC decoder implementations use message-passing decoding with finite precision, which becomes coarse as complexity is more severely constrained. Performance degrades as the precision becomes more coarse. Recently, the information bottleneck (IB) method was used to design mutual-information-maximizing lookup tables that replace conventional finite-precision node computations. The IB approach exchanges messages represented by integers with very small bit width. This paper extends the IB principle to the flexible class of PBRL LDPC codes as standardized in 5G. The extensions include puncturing and rate-compatible IB decoder design. As an example of the new approach, a 4-bit information bottleneck decoder is evaluated for PBRL LDPC codes over a typical range of rates. Frame error rate simulations show that the proposed scheme outperforms offset min-sum decoding algorithms and operates very close to double-precision sum-product belief propagation decoding.