skip to main content


Title: Sequential change-point detection in high-dimensional Gaussian graphical models
High dimensional piecewise stationary graphical models represent a versatile class for modelling time varying networks arising in diverse application areas, including biology, economics, and social sciences. There has been recent work in offline detection and estimation of regime changes in the topology of sparse graphical models. However, the online setting remains largely unexplored, despite its high relevance to applications in sensor networks and other engineering monitoring systems, as well as financial markets. To that end, this work introduces a novel scalable online algorithm for detecting an unknown number of abrupt changes in the inverse covariance matrix of sparse Gaussian graphical models with small delay. The proposed algorithm is based upon monitoring the conditional log-likelihood of all nodes in the network and can be extended to a large class of continuous and discrete graphical models. We also investigate asymptotic properties of our procedure under certain mild regularity conditions on the graph size, sparsity level, number of samples, and pre- and post-changes in the topology of the network. Numerical works on both synthetic and real data illustrate the good performance of the proposed methodology both in terms of computational and statistical efficiency across numerous experimental settings.  more » « less
Award ID(s):
1830175
NSF-PAR ID:
10178782
Author(s) / Creator(s):
; ;
Date Published:
Journal Name:
Journal of machine learning research
Volume:
21
Issue:
82
ISSN:
1532-4435
Page Range / eLocation ID:
1-57
Format(s):
Medium: X
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. null (Ed.)
    High dimensional piecewise stationary graphical models represent a versatile class for modelling time varying networks arising in diverse application areas, including biology, economics, and social sciences. There has been recent work in offline detection and estimation of regime changes in the topology of sparse graphical models. However, the online setting remains largely unexplored, despite its high relevance to applications in sensor networks and other engineering monitoring systems, as well as financial markets. To that end, this work introduces a novel scalable online algorithm for detecting an unknown number of abrupt changes in the inverse covariance matrix of sparse Gaussian graphical models with small delay. The proposed algorithm is based upon monitoring the conditional log-likelihood of all nodes in the network and can be extended to a large class of continuous and discrete graphical models. We also investigate asymptotic properties of our procedure under certain mild regularity conditions on the graph size, sparsity level, number of samples, and preand post-changes in the topology of the network. Numerical works on both synthetic and real data illustrate the good performance of the proposed methodology both in terms of computational and statistical efficiency across numerous experimental settings. 
    more » « less
  2. High dimensional piecewise stationary graphical models represent a versatile class for modelling time varying networks arising in diverse application areas, including biology, economics, and social sciences. There has been recent work in offline detection and estimation of regime changes in the topology of sparse graphical models. However, the online setting remains largely unexplored, despite its high relevance to applications in sensor networks and other engineering monitoring systems, as well as financial markets. To that end, this work introduces a novel scalable online algorithm for detecting an unknown number of abrupt changes in the inverse covariance matrix of sparse Gaussian graphical models with small delay. The proposed algorithm is based upon monitoring the conditional log-likelihood of all nodes in the network and can be extended to a large class of continuous and discrete graphical models. We also investigate asymptotic properties of our procedure under certain mild regularity conditions on the graph size, sparsity level, number of samples, and pre- and post-changes in the topology of the network. Numerical works on both synthetic and real data illustrate the good performance of the proposed methodology both in terms of computational and statistical efficiency across numerous experimental settings. 
    more » « less
  3. The monitoring of data streams with a network structure have drawn increasing attention due to its wide applications in modern process control. In these applications, high-dimensional sensor nodes are interconnected with an underlying network topology. In such a case, abnormalities occurring to any node may propagate dynamically across the network and cause changes of other nodes over time. Furthermore, high dimensionality of such data significantly increased the cost of resources for data transmission and computation, such that only partial observations can be transmitted or processed in practice. Overall, how to quickly detect abnormalities in such large networks with resource constraints remains a challenge, especially due to the sampling uncertainty under the dynamic anomaly occurrences and network-based patterns. In this paper, we incorporate network structure information into the monitoring and adaptive sampling methodologies for quick anomaly detection in large networks where only partial observations are available. We develop a general monitoring and adaptive sampling method and further extend it to the case with memory constraints, both of which exploit network distance and centrality information for better process monitoring and identification of abnormalities. Theoretical investigations of the proposed methods demonstrate their sampling efficiency on balancing between exploration and exploitation, as well as the detection performance guarantee. Numerical simulations and a case study on power network have demonstrated the superiority of the proposed methods in detecting various types of shifts. Note to Practitioners —Continuous monitoring of networks for anomalous events is critical for a large number of applications involving power networks, computer networks, epidemiological surveillance, social networks, etc. This paper aims at addressing the challenges in monitoring large networks in cases where monitoring resources are limited such that only a subset of nodes in the network is observable. Specifically, we integrate network structure information of nodes for constructing sequential detection methods via effective data augmentation, and for designing adaptive sampling algorithms to observe suspicious nodes that are likely to be abnormal. Then, the method is further generalized to the case that the memory of the computation is also constrained due to the network size. The developed method is greatly beneficial and effective for various anomaly patterns, especially when the initial anomaly randomly occurs to nodes in the network. The proposed methods are demonstrated to be capable of quickly detecting changes in the network and dynamically changes the sampling priority based on online observations in various cases, as shown in the theoretical investigation, simulations and case studies. 
    more » « less
  4. null (Ed.)
    Graphical models are powerful tools for modeling high-dimensional data, but learning graphical models in the presence of latent variables is well-known to be difficult. In this work we give new results for learning Restricted Boltzmann Machines, probably the most well-studied class of latent variable models. Our results are based on new connections to learning two-layer neural networks under ℓ∞ bounded input; for both problems, we give nearly optimal results under the conjectured hardness of sparse parity with noise. Using the connection between RBMs and feedforward networks, we also initiate the theoretical study of supervised RBMs [Hinton, 2012], a version of neural-network learning that couples distributional assumptions induced from the underlying graphical model with the architecture of the unknown function class. We then give an algorithm for learning a natural class of supervised RBMs with better runtime than what is possible for its related class of networks without distributional assumptions. 
    more » « less
  5. 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