More Like this

1. Self-Stabilizing Task Allocation in Spite of Noise

   https://doi.org/10.1145/3350755.3400226  

   Dornhaus, A.R. ; Lynch, N.A ; Mallmann-Trenn, F. ; Pajak, D. ; Radeva, T. ( January 2020 , 32nd ACM Symposium on Parallelism in Algorithms and Architectures (SPAA))

   We study the problem of distributed task allocation by workers in an ant colony in a setting of limited capabilities and noisy environment feedback. We assume that each task has a demand that should be satisfied but not exceeded, i.e., there is an optimal number of ants that should be working on this task at a given time. The goal is to assign a near-optimal number of workers to each task in a distributed manner without explicit access to the value of the demand nor to the number of ants working on the task. We seek to answer the question of how the quality of task allocation depends on the accuracy of assessing by the ants whether too many (overload) or not enough (lack) ants are currently working on a given task. In our model, each ant receives a binary feedback that depends on the deficit, defined as the difference between the demand and the current number of workers in the task. The feedback is modeled as a random variable that takes values lack or overload with probability given by a sigmoid function of the deficit. The higher the overload or lack of workers for a task, the more likely it is that an ant receives the correct feedback from this task; the closer the deficit is to zero, the less reliable the feedback becomes. Each ant receives the feedback independently about one chosen task. We measure the performance of task allocation algorithms using the notion of inaccuracy, defined as the number of steps in which the deficit of some task is beyond certain threshold. We propose a simple, constant-memory, self-stabilizing, distributed algorithm that converges from any initial assignment to a near-optimal assignment under noisy feedback and keeps the deficit small for all tasks in almost every step. We also prove a lower bound for any constant-memory algorithm, which matches, up to a constant factor, the accuracy achieved by our algorithm. 

   more » « less
2. Lower Bounds for Dynamic Distributed Task Allocation

   Su, Hsin-Hao ; Wein, Nicole ( January 2019 , 7th Workshop on Biological Distributed Algorithms (BDA))

   We study the problem of distributed task allocation in multi-agent systems e.g. the division of labor in an ant colony or robot swarm. Suppose there is a collection of agents, a collection of tasks, and a demand vector, which specifies the number of agents required to perform each task.The goal of the agents is to collectively allocate themselves to the tasks to satisfy the demand vector. We study the dynamic version of the problem where the demand vector changes overtime. Here, the goal is to minimize the switching cost, which is the number of agents that change tasks in response to a change in the demand vector. The switching cost is an important metric since changing tasks may incur significant overhead.We study a mathematical formalization of the above problem introduced by Su, Su, Dornhaus, and Lynch [21]. We prove the first non-trivial lower bounds for the switching cost. 

   more » « less
3. Expanding an HPC Cluster to Support the Computational Demands of Digital Pathology

   https://doi.org/10.1109/SPMB.2018.8615614  

   Campbell, C. ; Mecca, N. ; Duong, T. ; Obeid, I. ; Picone, J. ( December 2018 , IEEE Signal Processing in Medicine and Biology Symposium (SPMB))

   Obeid, Iyad ; Selesnick, Ivan ; Picone, Joseph (Ed.)

   The goal of this work was to design a low-cost computing facility that can support the development of an open source digital pathology corpus containing 1M images [1]. A single image from a clinical-grade digital pathology scanner can range in size from hundreds of megabytes to five gigabytes. A 1M image database requires over a petabyte (PB) of disk space. To do meaningful work in this problem space requires a significant allocation of computing resources. The improvements and expansions to our HPC (highperformance computing) cluster, known as Neuronix [2], required to support working with digital pathology fall into two broad categories: computation and storage. To handle the increased computational burden and increase job throughput, we are using Slurm [3] as our scheduler and resource manager. For storage, we have designed and implemented a multi-layer filesystem architecture to distribute a filesystem across multiple machines. These enhancements, which are entirely based on open source software, have extended the capabilities of our cluster and increased its cost-effectiveness. Slurm has numerous features that allow it to generalize to a number of different scenarios. Among the most notable is its support for GPU (graphics processing unit) scheduling. GPUs can offer a tremendous performance increase in machine learning applications [4] and Slurm’s built-in mechanisms for handling them was a key factor in making this choice. Slurm has a general resource (GRES) mechanism that can be used to configure and enable support for resources beyond the ones provided by the traditional HPC scheduler (e.g. memory, wall-clock time), and GPUs are among the GRES types that can be supported by Slurm [5]. In addition to being able to track resources, Slurm does strict enforcement of resource allocation. This becomes very important as the computational demands of the jobs increase, so that they have all the resources they need, and that they don’t take resources from other jobs. It is a common practice among GPU-enabled frameworks to query the CUDA runtime library/drivers and iterate over the list of GPUs, attempting to establish a context on all of them. Slurm is able to affect the hardware discovery process of these jobs, which enables a number of these jobs to run alongside each other, even if the GPUs are in exclusive-process mode. To store large quantities of digital pathology slides, we developed a robust, extensible distributed storage solution. We utilized a number of open source tools to create a single filesystem, which can be mounted by any machine on the network. At the lowest layer of abstraction are the hard drives, which were split into 4 60-disk chassis, using 8TB drives. To support these disks, we have two server units, each equipped with Intel Xeon CPUs and 128GB of RAM. At the filesystem level, we have implemented a multi-layer solution that: (1) connects the disks together into a single filesystem/mountpoint using the ZFS (Zettabyte File System) [6], and (2) connects filesystems on multiple machines together to form a single mountpoint using Gluster [7]. ZFS, initially developed by Sun Microsystems, provides disk-level awareness and a filesystem which takes advantage of that awareness to provide fault tolerance. At the filesystem level, ZFS protects against data corruption and the infamous RAID write-hole bug by implementing a journaling scheme (the ZFS intent log, or ZIL) and copy-on-write functionality. Each machine (1 controller + 2 disk chassis) has its own separate ZFS filesystem. Gluster, essentially a meta-filesystem, takes each of these, and provides the means to connect them together over the network and using distributed (similar to RAID 0 but without striping individual files), and mirrored (similar to RAID 1) configurations [8]. By implementing these improvements, it has been possible to expand the storage and computational power of the Neuronix cluster arbitrarily to support the most computationally-intensive endeavors by scaling horizontally. We have greatly improved the scalability of the cluster while maintaining its excellent price/performance ratio [1]. 

   more » « less
4. Learning and Strongly Truthful Multi-Task Peer Prediction: A Variational Approach

   Schoenebeck, Grant ; Yu, Fang-Yi ( January 2021 , 12th Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science Conference (ITCS 2021))

   null (Ed.)

   Peer prediction mechanisms incentivize agents to truthfully report their signals even in the absence of verification by comparing agents’ reports with those of their peers. In the detail-free multi-task setting, agents are asked to respond to multiple independent and identically distributed tasks, and the mechanism does not know the prior distribution of agents’ signals. The goal is to provide an epsilon-strongly truthful mechanism where truth-telling rewards agents “strictly” more than any other strategy profile (with epsilon additive error) even for heterogeneous agents, and to do so while requiring as few tasks as possible. We design a family of mechanisms with a scoring function that maps a pair of reports to a score. The mechanism is strongly truthful if the scoring function is “prior ideal”. Moreover, the mechanism is epsilon-strongly truthful as long as the scoring function used is sufficiently close to the ideal scoring function. This reduces the above mechanism design problem to a learning problem – specifically learning an ideal scoring function. Because learning the prior distribution is sufficient (but not necessary) to learn the scoring function, we can apply standard learning theory techniques that leverage side information about the prior (e.g., that it is close to some parametric model). Furthermore, we derive a variational representation of an ideal scoring function and reduce the learning problem into an empirical risk minimization. We leverage this reduction to obtain very general results for peer prediction in the multi-task setting. Specifically, Sample Complexity. We show how to derive good bounds on the number of tasks required for different types of priors–in some cases exponentially improving previous results. In particular, we can upper bound the required number of tasks for parametric models with bounded learning complexity. Furthermore, our reduction applies to myriad continuous signal space settings. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first peer-prediction mechanism on continuous signals designed for the multi-task setting. Connection to Machine Learning. We show how to turn a soft-predictor of an agent’s signals (given the other agents’ signals) into a mechanism. This allows the practical use of machine learning algorithms that give good results even when many agents provide noisy information. Stronger Properties. In the finite setting, we obtain -strongly truthful mechanisms for any stochastically relevant prior. Prior works either only apply to more restrictive settings, or achieve a weaker notion of truthfulness (informed truthfulness). 

   more » « less
5. 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