More Like this

1. A Deep Learning Based Approach to Predict Sequential Design Decisions

   https://doi.org/10.1115/DETC2019-97625  

   Rahman, Molla Hafizur ; Xie, Charles ; Sha, Zhenghui ( November 2019 , ASME 2019 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference)

   During a design process, designers iteratively go back and forth between different design stages to explore the design space and search for the best design solution that satisfies all design constraints. For complex design problems, human has shown surprising capability in effectively reducing the dimensionality of design space and quickly converging it to a reasonable range for algorithms to step in and continue the search process. Therefore, modeling how human designers make decisions in such a sequential design process can help discover beneficial design patterns, strategies, and heuristics, which are important to the development of new algorithms embedded with human intelligence to augment computational design. In this paper, we develop a deep learning based approach to model and predict designers’ sequential decisions in a system design context. The core of this approach is an integration of the function-behavior-structure model for design process characterization and the long short term memory unit model for deep leaning. This approach is demonstrated in a solar energy system design case study, and its prediction accuracy is evaluated benchmarked on several commonly used models for sequential design decisions, such as Markov Chain model, Hidden Markov Chain model, and random sequence generation model. The results indicate that the proposed approach outperforms the other traditional models. This implies that during a system design task, designers are very likely to reply on both short-term and long-term memory of past design decisions in guiding their decision making in future design process. Our approach is general to be applied in many other design contexts as long as the sequential design action data is available.

    

   more » « less
2. Design Embedding: Representation Learning of Design Thinking to Cluster Design Behaviors

   https://doi.org/10.1115/DETC2021-72406  

   Hafizur Rahman, M. ; Xie, C. ; Sha, Z. ( November 2021 , ASME 2021 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference)

   Design thinking is essential to the success of a design process as it helps achieve the design goal by guiding design decision-making. Therefore, fundamentally understanding design thinking is vital for improving design methods, tools and theories. However, interpreting design thinking is challenging because it is a cognitive process that is hidden and intangible. In this paper, we represent design thinking as an intermediate layer between human designers’ thought processes and their design behaviors. To do so, this paper first identifies five design behaviors based on the current design theories. These behaviors include design action preference, one-step sequential behavior, contextual behavior, long-term sequential behavior, and reflective thinking behavior. Next, we develop computational methods to characterize each of the design behaviors. Particularly, we use design action distribution, first-order Markov chain, Doc2Vec, bi-directional LSTM autoencoder, and time gap distribution to characterize the five design behaviors. The characterization of the design behaviors through embedding techniques is essentially a latent representation of the design thinking, and we refer to it as design embeddings. After obtaining the embedding, an X-mean clustering algorithm is adopted to each of the embeddings to cluster designers. The approach is applied to data collected from a high school solar system design challenge. The clustering results show that designers follow several design patterns according to the corresponding behavior, which corroborates the effectiveness of using design embedding for design behavior clustering. The extraction of design embedding based on the proposed approach can be useful in other design research, such as inferring design decisions, predicting design performance, and identifying design actions identification.

    

   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. Generative Design of Sheet Metal Structures

   https://doi.org/10.1145/3592444  

   Barda, Amir ; Tevet, Guy ; Schulz, Adriana ; Bermano, Amit Haim ( August 2023 , ACM Transactions on Graphics)

   Sheet Metal (SM) fabrication is perhaps one of the most common metalworking technique. Despite its prevalence, SM design is manual and costly, with rigorous practices that restrict the search space, yielding suboptimal results. In contrast, we present a framework for the first automatic design of SM parts. Focusing on load bearing applications, our novel system generates a high-performing manufacturable SM that adheres to the numerous constraints that SM design entails: The resulting part minimizes manufacturing costs while adhering to structural, spatial, and manufacturing constraints. In other words, the part should be strong enough, not disturb the environment, and adhere to the manufacturing process. These desiderata sum up to an elaborate, sparse, and expensive search space. Our generative approach is a carefully designed exploration process, comprising two steps. In Segment Discovery connections from the input load to attachable regions are accumulated, and during Segment Composition the most performing valid combination is searched for. For Discovery, we define a slim grammar, and sample it for parts using a Markov-Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) approach, ran in intercommunicating instances (i.e, chains) for diversity. This, followed by a short continuous optimization, enables building a diverse and high-quality library of substructures. During Composition, a valid and minimal cost combination of the curated substructures is selected. To improve compliance significantly without additional manufacturing costs, we reinforce candidate parts onto themselves --- a unique SM capability called self-riveting. we provide our code and data in https://github.com/amir90/AutoSheetMetal. We show our generative approach produces viable parts for numerous scenarios. We compare our system against a human expert and observe improvements in both part quality and design time. We further analyze our pipeline's steps with respect to resulting quality, and have fabricated some results for validation. We hope our system will stretch the field of SM design, replacing costly expert hours with minutes of standard CPU, making this cheap and reliable manufacturing method accessible to anyone. 

   more » « less
5. Predicting human design decisions with deep recurrent neural network combining static and dynamic data

   https://doi.org/10.1017/dsj.2020.12  

   Rahman, Molla Hafizur ; Yuan, Shuhan ; Xie, Charles ; Sha, Zhenghui ( January 2020 , Design Science)

   Computational modeling of the human sequential design process and successful prediction of future design decisions are fundamental to design knowledge extraction, transfer, and the development of artificial design agents. However, it is often difficult to obtain designer-related attributes (static data) in design practices, and the research based on combining static and dynamic data (design action sequences) in engineering design is still underexplored. This paper presents an approach that combines both static and dynamic data for human design decision prediction using two different methods. The first method directly combines the sequential design actions with static data in a recurrent neural network (RNN) model, while the second method integrates a feed-forward neural network that handles static data separately, yet in parallel with RNN. This study contributes to the field from three aspects: (a) we developed a method of utilizing designers’ cluster information as a surrogate static feature to combine with a design action sequence in order to tackle the challenge of obtaining designer-related attributes; (b) we devised a method that integrates the function–behavior–structure design process model with the one-hot vectorization in RNN to transform design action data to design process stages where the insights into design thinking can be drawn; (c) to the best of our knowledge, it is the first time that two methods of combining static and dynamic data in RNN are compared, which provides new knowledge about the utility of different combination methods in studying sequential design decisions. The approach is demonstrated in two case studies on solar energy system design. The results indicate that with appropriate kernel models, the RNN with both static and dynamic data outperforms traditional models that only rely on design action sequences, thereby better supporting design research where static features, such as human characteristics, often play an important role. 

   more » « less