More Like this

1. Comparing machine learning and deep learning regression frameworks for accurate prediction of dielectrophoretic force

   https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-16114-5  

   Ajala, Sunday ; Muraleedharan Jalajamony, Harikrishnan ; Nair, Midhun ; Marimuthu, Pradeep ; Fernandez, Renny Edwin ( July 2022 , Scientific Reports)

   An intelligent sensing framework using Machine Learning (ML) and Deep Learning (DL) architectures to precisely quantify dielectrophoretic force invoked on microparticles in a textile electrode-based DEP sensing device is reported. The prediction accuracy and generalization ability of the framework was validated using experimental results. Images of pearl chain alignment at varying input voltages were used to build deep regression models using modified ML and CNN architectures that can correlate pearl chain alignment patterns of Saccharomyces cerevisiae(yeast) cells and polystyrene microbeads to DEP force. Various ML models such as K-Nearest Neighbor, Support Vector Machine, Random Forest, Neural Networks, and Linear Regression along with DL models such as Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) architectures of AlexNet, ResNet-50, MobileNetV2, and GoogLeNet have been analyzed in order to build an effective regression framework to estimate the force induced on yeast cells and microbeads. The efficiencies of the models were evaluated using Mean Absolute Error, Mean Absolute Relative, Mean Squared Error, R-squared, and Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) as evaluation metrics. ResNet-50 with RMSPROP gave the best performance, with a validation RMSE of 0.0918 on yeast cells while AlexNet with ADAM optimizer gave the best performance, with a validation RMSE of 0.1745 on microbeads. Thismore »provides a baseline for further studies in the application of deep learning in DEP aided Lab-on-Chip devices.

   « less
2. 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
3. DeepSteal: Advanced Model Extractions Leveraging Efficient Weight Stealing in Memories

   https://doi.org/10.1109/SP46214.2022.9833743  

   Rakin, Adnan Siraj ; Chowdhuryy, Md Hafizul ; Yao, Fan ; Fan, Deliang ( May 2022 , 2022 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP))

   Recent advancements in Deep Neural Networks (DNNs) have enabled widespread deployment in multiple security-sensitive domains. The need for resource-intensive training and the use of valuable domain-specific training data have made these models the top intellectual property (IP) for model owners. One of the major threats to DNN privacy is model extraction attacks where adversaries attempt to steal sensitive information in DNN models. In this work, we propose an advanced model extraction framework DeepSteal that steals DNN weights remotely for the first time with the aid of a memory side-channel attack. Our proposed DeepSteal comprises two key stages. Firstly, we develop a new weight bit information extraction method, called HammerLeak, through adopting the rowhammer-based fault technique as the information leakage vector. HammerLeak leverages several novel system-level techniques tailored for DNN applications to enable fast and efficient weight stealing. Secondly, we propose a novel substitute model training algorithm with Mean Clustering weight penalty, which leverages the partial leaked bit information effectively and generates a substitute prototype of the target victim model. We evaluate the proposed model extraction framework on three popular image datasets (e.g., CIFAR-10/100/GTSRB) and four DNN architectures (e.g., ResNet-18/34/Wide-ResNetNGG-11). The extracted substitute model has successfully achieved more than 90% testmore »accuracy on deep residual networks for the CIFAR-10 dataset. Moreover, our extracted substitute model could also generate effective adversarial input samples to fool the victim model. Notably, it achieves similar performance (i.e., ~1-2% test accuracy under attack) as white-box adversarial input attack (e.g., PGD/Trades).« less
4. Studying the effect of a decision fusion model on enhanced hyperspectral images

   https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2560107  

   Theran, Carlos A. ; Alvarez, Michael ; Sierra, Heidy ; Arzuaga, Emmanuel ( May 2020 , Proc. SPIE 11392, Algorithms, Technologies, and Applications for Multispectral and Hyperspectral Imagery XXVI, 1139206)

   Messinger, David W. ; Velez-Reyes, Miguel (Ed.)

   Recent advances in data fusion provide the capability to obtain enhanced hyperspectral data with high spatial and spectral information content, thus allowing for an improved classification accuracy. Although hyperspectral image classification is a highly investigated topic in remote sensing, each classification technique presents different advantages and disadvantages. For example; methods based on morphological filtering are particularly good at classifying human-made structures with basic geometrical spatial shape, like houses and buildings. On the other hand, methods based on spectral information tend to perform better classification in natural scenery with more shape diversity such as vegetation and soil areas. Even more, for those classes with mixed pixels, small training data or objects with similar re ectance values present a higher challenge to obtain high classification accuracy. Therefore, it is difficult to find just one technique that provides the highest accuracy of classification for every class present in an image. This work proposes a decision fusion approach aiming to increase classification accuracy of enhanced hyperspectral images by integrating the results of multiple classifiers. Our approach is performed in two-steps: 1) the use of machine learning algorithms such as Support Vector Machines (SVM), Deep Neural Networks (DNN) and Class-dependent Sparse Representation will generate initialmore »classification data, then 2) the decision fusion scheme based on a Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) will integrate all the classification results into a unified classification rule. In particular, the CNN receives as input the different probabilities of pixel values from each implemented classifier, and using a softmax activation function, the final decision is estimated. We present results showing the performance of our method using different hyperspectral image datasets.« less
5. Learning Adjustable Reduced Downsampling Network for Small Object Detection in Urban Environments

   https://doi.org/10.3390/rs13183608  

   Zhang, Huijie ; An, Li ; Chu, Vena W. ; Stow, Douglas A. ; Liu, Xiaobai ; Ding, Qinghua ( September 2021 , Remote Sensing)

   Detecting small objects (e.g., manhole covers, license plates, and roadside milestones) in urban images is a long-standing challenge mainly due to the scale of small object and background clutter. Although convolution neural network (CNN)-based methods have made significant progress and achieved impressive results in generic object detection, the problem of small object detection remains unsolved. To address this challenge, in this study we developed an end-to-end network architecture that has three significant characteristics compared to previous works. First, we designed a backbone network module, namely Reduced Downsampling Network (RD-Net), to extract informative feature representations with high spatial resolutions and preserve local information for small objects. Second, we introduced an Adjustable Sample Selection (ADSS) module which frees the Intersection-over-Union (IoU) threshold hyperparameters and defines positive and negative training samples based on statistical characteristics between generated anchors and ground reference bounding boxes. Third, we incorporated the generalized Intersection-over-Union (GIoU) loss for bounding box regression, which efficiently bridges the gap between distance-based optimization loss and area-based evaluation metrics. We demonstrated the effectiveness of our method by performing extensive experiments on the public Urban Element Detection (UED) dataset acquired by Mobile Mapping Systems (MMS). The Average Precision (AP) of the proposed method was 81.71%,more »representing an improvement of 1.2% compared with the popular detection framework Faster R-CNN.« less