More Like this

1. Tree Based Clustering On Large, High Dimensional Datasets

   Carraher, Lee A. ; Dey, Sayantan ; Wilsey, Philip A. ( July 2019 , MLDM 2019: 15th International Conference on Machine Learning and Data Mining)

   Clustering continues to be an important tool for data engineering and analysis. While advances in deep learning tend to be at the forefront of machine learning, it is only useful for the supervised classification of data sets. Clustering is an essential tool for problems where labeling data sets is either too labor intensive or where there is no agreed upon ground truth. The well studied k-means problem partitions groups of similar vectors into k clusters by iteratively updating the cluster assignment such that it minimizes the within cluster sum of squares metric. Unfortunately k-means can become prohibitive for very large high dimensional data sets as iterative methods often rely on random access to, or multiple passes over, the data set — a requirement that is not often possible for large and potentially unbounded data sets. In this work we explore an randomized, approximate method for clustering called Tree-Walk Random Projection Clustering (TWRP) that is a fast, memory efficient method for finding cluster embedding in high dimensional spaces. TWRP combines random projection with a tree based partitioner to achieve a clustering method that forgoes storing the exhaustive representation of all vectors in the data space and instead performs a bounded search over the implied cluster bifurcation tree represented as approximate vector and count values. The TWRP algorithm is described and experimentally evaluated for scalability and accuracy in the presence of noise against several other well-known algorithms. 

   more » « less
2. Experiences on Clustering High-Dimensional Data using pbdR

   https://doi.org/10.1145/3144763.3144768  

   Amreen, Sadika ; Mockus, Audris ( January 2017 , Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Software Engineering for High Performance Computing in Computational and Data-enabled Science & Engineering)

   Motivation: Software engineering for High Performace Computing (HPC) environments in general [1] and for big data in particular [5] faces a set of unique challenges including high complexity of middleware and of computing environments. Tools that make it easier for scientists to utilize HPC are, therefore, of paramount importance. We provide an experience report of using one of such highly effective middleware pbdR [9] that allow the scientist to use R programming language without, at least nominally, having to master many layers of HPC infrastructure, such as OpenMPI [4] and ScalaPACK [2]. Objective: to evaluate the extent to which middleware helps improve scientist productivity, we use pbdR to solve a real problem that we, as scientists, are investigating. Our big data comes from the commits on GitHub and other project hosting sites and we are trying to cluster developers based on the text of these commit messages. Context: We need to be able to identify developer for every commit and to identify commits for a single developer. Developer identifiers in the commits, such as login, email, and name are often spelled in multiple ways since that information may come from different version control systems (Git, Mercurial, SVN, ...) and may depend on which computer is used (what is specified in .git/config of the home folder). Method: We train Doc2Vec [7] model where existing credentials are used as a document identifier and then use the resulting 200-dimensional vectors for the 2.3M identifiers to cluster these identifiers so that each cluster represents a specific individual. The distance matrix occupies 32TB and, therefore, is a good target for HPC in general and pbdR in particular. pbdR allows data to be distributed over computing nodes and even has implemented K-means and mixture-model clustering techniques in the package pmclust. Results: We used strategic prototyping [3] to evaluate the capabilities of pbdR and discovered that a) the use of middleware required extensive understanding of its inner workings thus negating many of the expected benefits; b) the implemented algorithms were not suitable for the particular combination of n, p, and k (sample size, data dimension, and the number of clusters); c) the development environment based on batch jobs increases development time substantially. Conclusions: In addition to finding from Basili et al., we find that the quality of the implementation of HPC infrastructure and its development environment has a tremendous effect on development productivity. 

   more » « less
3. 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
4. Coreset Clustering on Small Quantum Computers

   https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics10141690  

   Tomesh, Teague ; Gokhale, Pranav ; Anschuetz, Eric R. ; Chong, Frederic T. ( July 2021 , Electronics)

   null (Ed.)

   Many quantum algorithms for machine learning require access to classical data in superposition. However, for many natural data sets and algorithms, the overhead required to load the data set in superposition can erase any potential quantum speedup over classical algorithms. Recent work by Harrow introduces a new paradigm in hybrid quantum-classical computing to address this issue, relying on coresets to minimize the data loading overhead of quantum algorithms. We investigated using this paradigm to perform k-means clustering on near-term quantum computers, by casting it as a QAOA optimization instance over a small coreset. We used numerical simulations to compare the performance of this approach to classical k-means clustering. We were able to find data sets with which coresets work well relative to random sampling and where QAOA could potentially outperform standard k-means on a coreset. However, finding data sets where both coresets and QAOA work well—which is necessary for a quantum advantage over k-means on the entire data set—appears to be challenging. 

   more » « less
5. HyDREA: Utilizing Hyperdimensional Computing For A More Robust and Efficient Machine Learning System

   https://doi.org/10.1145/3524067  

   Morris, Justin ; Ergun, Kazim ; Khaleghi, Behnam ; Imani, Mohsen ; Aksanli, Baris ; Rosing, Tajana ( January 2022 , ACM Transactions on Embedded Computing Systems)

   Today’s systems, rely on sending all the data to the cloud, and then use complex algorithms, such as Deep Neural Networks, which require billions of parameters and many hours to train a model. In contrast, the human brain can do much of this learning effortlessly. Hyperdimensional (HD) Computing aims to mimic the behavior of the human brain by utilizing high dimensional representations. This leads to various desirable properties that other Machine Learning (ML) algorithms lack such as: robustness to noise in the system and simple, highly parallel operations. In this paper, we propose \(\mathsf {HyDREA} \) , a Hy per D imensional Computing system that is R obust, E fficient, and A ccurate. We propose a Processing-in-Memory (PIM) architecture that works in a federated learning environment with challenging communication scenarios that cause errors in the transmitted data. \(\mathsf {HyDREA} \) adaptively changes the bitwidth of the model based on the signal to noise ratio (SNR) of the incoming sample to maintain the accuracy of the HD model while achieving significant speedup and energy efficiency. Our PIM architecture is able to achieve a speedup of 28 × and 255 × better energy efficiency compared to the baseline PIM architecture for Classification and achieves 32 × speed up and 289 × higher energy efficiency than the baseline architecture for Clustering. \(\mathsf {HyDREA} \) is able to achieve this by relaxing hardware parameters to gain energy efficiency and speedup while introducing computational errors. We show experimentally, HD Computing is able to handle the errors without a significant drop in accuracy due to its unique robustness property. For wireless noise, we found that \(\mathsf {HyDREA} \) is 48 × more robust to noise than other comparable ML algorithms. Our results indicate that our proposed system loses less than \(1\% \) Classification accuracy, even in scenarios with an SNR of 6.64. We additionally test the robustness of using HD Computing for Clustering applications and found that our proposed system also looses less than \(1\% \) in the mutual information score, even in scenarios with an SNR under 7 dB , which is 57 × more robust to noise than K-means. 

   more » « less