More Like this

1. Circulation Control for Faster Minimum Cost Flow in Unit-Capacity Graphs

   Axiotis, Kyriakos ; Madry, Aleksander ; Vladu, Adrian ( November 2020 , IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science)

   We present an $m^{4/3}+o(1) \log W$ -time algorithm for solving the minimum cost flow problem in graphs with unit capacity, where W is the maximum absolute value of any edge weight. For sparse graphs, this improves over the best known running time for this problem and, by well-known reductions, also implies improved running times for the shortest path problem with negative weights, minimum cost bipartite $b$-matching when $\|b\|_1 = O(m)$, and recovers the running time of the currently fastest algorithm for maximum flow in graphs with unit capacities (Liu-Sidford, 2020). Our algorithm relies on developing an interior point method–based framework which acts on the space of circulations in the underlying graph. From the combinatorial point of view, this framework can be viewed as iteratively improving the cost of a suboptimal solution by pushing flow around circulations. These circulations are derived by computing a regularized version of the standard Newton step, which is partially inspired by previous work on the unit-capacity maximum flow problem (Liu-Sidford, 2019), and subsequently refined based on the very re- cent progress on this problem (Liu-Sidford, 2020). The resulting step problem can then be computed efficiently using the recent work on $l_p$-norm minimizing flows (Kyng-Peng-Sachdeva- Wang, 2019).more »We obtain our faster algorithm by combining this new step primitive with a customized preconditioning method, which aims to ensure that the graph on which these circulations are computed has sufficiently large conductance.« less
2. Bipartite Matching in Nearly-linear Time on Moderately Dense Graphs

   https://doi.org/10.1109/FOCS46700.2020.00090  

   van den Brand, Jan ; Lee, Yin-Tat ; Nanongkai, Danupon ; Peng, Richard ; Saranurak, Thatchaphol ; Sidford, Aaron ; Song, Zhao ; Wang, Di ( November 2020 , 61st IEEE Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, FOCS 2020, Durham, NC, USA, November 16-19, 2020)

   We present an $\tilde O(m+n^{1.5})$-time randomized algorithm for maximum cardinality bipartite matching and related problems (e.g. transshipment, negative-weight shortest paths, and optimal transport) on $m$-edge, $n$-node graphs. For maximum cardinality bipartite matching on moderately dense graphs, i.e. $m = \Omega(n^{1.5})$, our algorithm runs in time nearly linear in the input size and constitutes the first improvement over the classic $O(m\sqrt{n})$-time [Dinic 1970; Hopcroft-Karp 1971; Karzanov 1973] and $\tilde O(n^\omega)$-time algorithms [Ibarra-Moran 1981] (where currently $\omega\approx 2.373$). On sparser graphs, i.e. when $m = n^{9/8 + \delta}$ for any constant $\delta>0$, our result improves upon the recent advances of [Madry 2013] and [Liu-Sidford 2020b, 2020a] which achieve an $\tilde O(m^{4/3+o(1)})$ runtime. We obtain these results by combining and advancing recent lines of research in interior point methods (IPMs) and dynamic graph algorithms. First, we simplify and improve the IPM of [v.d.Brand-Lee-Sidford-Song 2020], providing a general primal-dual IPM framework and new sampling-based techniques for handling infeasibility induced by approximate linear system solvers. Second, we provide a simple sublinear-time algorithm for detecting and sampling high-energy edges in electric flows on expanders and show that when combined with recent advances in dynamic expander decompositions, this yields efficient data structures for maintaining the iterates ofmore »both [v.d.Brand~et~al.] and our new IPMs. Combining this general machinery yields a simpler $\tilde O(n \sqrt{m})$ time algorithm for matching based on the logarithmic barrier function, and our state-of-the-art $\tilde O(m+n^{1.5})$ time algorithm for matching based on the [Lee-Sidford 2014] barrier (as regularized in [v.d.Brand~et~al.]).« less
3. Maximum Flow and Minimum-Cost Flow in Almost-Linear Time

   https://doi.org/10.1109/FOCS54457.2022.00064  

   Chen, Li ; Kyng, Rasmus ; Liu, Yang P. ; Peng, Richard ; Gutenberg, Maximilian Probst ; Sachdeva, Sushant ( October 2022 , 2022 IEEE 63rd Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS))

   We give an algorithm that computes exact maximum flows and minimum-cost flows on directed graphs with m edges and polynomially bounded integral demands, costs, and capacities in m^{1+o(1)} time. Our algorithm builds the flow through a sequence of m^{1+o(1)} approximate undirected minimum-ratio cycles, each of which is computed and processed in amortized m^{o(1)} time using a new dynamic graph data structure. Our framework extends to algorithms running in m^{1+o(1)} time for computing flows that minimize general edge-separable convex functions to high accuracy. This gives almost-linear time algorithms for several problems including entropy-regularized optimal transport, matrix scaling, p-norm flows, and p-norm isotonic regression on arbitrary directed acyclic graphs.
4. A Combinatorial Cut-Toggling Algorithm for Solving Laplacian Systems

   Henzinger, Monika ; Jin, Billy ; Peng, Richard ; Williamson, David P. ( January 2023 , Leibniz international proceedings in informatics)

   Tauman Kalai, Yael (Ed.)

   Over the last two decades, a significant line of work in theoretical algorithms has made progress in solving linear systems of the form 𝐋𝐱 = 𝐛, where 𝐋 is the Laplacian matrix of a weighted graph with weights w(i,j) > 0 on the edges. The solution 𝐱 of the linear system can be interpreted as the potentials of an electrical flow in which the resistance on edge (i,j) is 1/w(i,j). Kelner, Orrechia, Sidford, and Zhu [Kelner et al., 2013] give a combinatorial, near-linear time algorithm that maintains the Kirchoff Current Law, and gradually enforces the Kirchoff Potential Law by updating flows around cycles (cycle toggling). In this paper, we consider a dual version of the algorithm that maintains the Kirchoff Potential Law, and gradually enforces the Kirchoff Current Law by cut toggling: each iteration updates all potentials on one side of a fundamental cut of a spanning tree by the same amount. We prove that this dual algorithm also runs in a near-linear number of iterations. We show, however, that if we abstract cut toggling as a natural data structure problem, this problem can be reduced to the online vector-matrix-vector problem (OMv), which has been conjectured to be difficult formore »dynamic algorithms [Henzinger et al., 2015]. The conjecture implies that the data structure does not have an O(n^{1-ε}) time algorithm for any ε > 0, and thus a straightforward implementation of the cut-toggling algorithm requires essentially linear time per iteration. To circumvent the lower bound, we batch update steps, and perform them simultaneously instead of sequentially. An appropriate choice of batching leads to an Õ(m^{1.5}) time cut-toggling algorithm for solving Laplacian systems. Furthermore, we show that if we sparsify the graph and call our algorithm recursively on the Laplacian system implied by batching and sparsifying, we can reduce the running time to O(m^{1 + ε}) for any ε > 0. Thus, the dual cut-toggling algorithm can achieve (almost) the same running time as its primal cycle-toggling counterpart.« 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 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