More Like this

1. Physics-Constrained Dictionary Learning for Selective Laser Melting Process Monitoring

   Lu, Yanglong ; Wang, Yan ( May 2021 , Proceedings of 2021 IISE Annual Conference & Expo)

   null (Ed.)

   Compressed sensing (CS) as a new data acquisition technique has been applied to monitor manufacturing processes. With a few measurements, sparse coefficient vectors can be recovered by solving an inverse problem and original signals can be reconstructed. Dictionary learning methods have been developed and applied in combination with CS to improve the sparsity level of the recovered coefficient vectors. In this work, a physics-constrained dictionary learning approach is proposed to solve both of reconstruction and classification problems by optimizing measurement, basis, and classification matrices simultaneously with the considerations of the application-specific restrictions. It is applied in image acquisitions in selective laser melting (SLM). The proposed approach includes the optimization in two steps. In the first stage, with the basis matrix fixed, the measurement matrix is optimized by determining the pixel locations for sampling in each image. The optimized measurement matrix only includes one non-zero entry in each row. The optimization of pixel locations is solved based on a constrained FrameSense algorithm. In the second stage, with the measurement matrix fixed, the basis and classification matrices are optimized based on the K-SVD algorithm. With the optimized basis matrix, the coefficient vector can be recovered with CS. The original signal can be reconstructed by the linear combination of the basis matrix and the recovered coefficient vector. The original signal can also be classified to identify different machine states by the linear combination of the classification matrix and the coefficient vector. 

   more » « 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 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
3. Embedding properties of network realizations of dissipative reduced order models

   Druskin, Guddati ( July 2022 , HOUSEHOLDER SYMPOSIUM XXI)

   Embedding properties of network realizations of dissipative reduced order models Jörn Zimmerling, Mikhail Zaslavsky,Rob Remis, Shasri Moskow, Alexander Mamonov, Murthy Guddati, Vladimir Druskin, and Liliana Borcea Mathematical Sciences Department, Worcester Polytechnic Institute https://www.wpi.edu/people/vdruskin Abstract Realizations of reduced order models of passive SISO or MIMO LTI problems can be transformed to tridiagonal and block-tridiagonal forms, respectively, via dierent modications of the Lanczos algorithm. Generally, such realizations can be interpreted as ladder resistor-capacitor-inductor (RCL) networks. They gave rise to network syntheses in the rst half of the 20th century that was at the base of modern electronics design and consecutively to MOR that tremendously impacted many areas of engineering (electrical, mechanical, aerospace, etc.) by enabling ecient compression of the underlining dynamical systems. In his seminal 1950s works Krein realized that in addition to their compressing properties, network realizations can be used to embed the data back into the state space of the underlying continuum problems. In more recent works of the authors Krein's ideas gave rise to so-called nite-dierence Gaussian quadrature rules (FDGQR), allowing to approximately map the ROM state-space representation to its full order continuum counterpart on a judicially chosen grid. Thus, the state variables can be accessed directly from the transfer function without solving the full problem and even explicit knowledge of the PDE coecients in the interior, i.e., the FDGQR directly learns" the problem from its transfer function. This embedding property found applications in PDE solvers, inverse problems and unsupervised machine learning. Here we show a generalization of this approach to dissipative PDE problems, e.g., electromagnetic and acoustic wave propagation in lossy dispersive media. Potential applications include solution of inverse scattering problems in dispersive media, such as seismic exploration, radars and sonars. To x the idea, we consider a passive irreducible SISO ROM fn(s) = Xn j=1 yi s + σj , (62) assuming that all complex terms in (62) come in conjugate pairs. We will seek ladder realization of (62) as rjuj + vj − vj−1 = −shˆjuj , uj+1 − uj + ˆrj vj = −shj vj , (63) for j = 0, . . . , n with boundary conditions un+1 = 0, v1 = −1, and 4n real parameters hi, hˆi, ri and rˆi, i = 1, . . . , n, that can be considered, respectively, as the equivalent discrete inductances, capacitors and also primary and dual conductors. Alternatively, they can be viewed as respectively masses, spring stiness, primary and dual dampers of a mechanical string. Reordering variables would bring (63) into tridiagonal form, so from the spectral measure given by (62 ) the coecients of (63) can be obtained via a non-symmetric Lanczos algorithm written in J-symmetric form and fn(s) can be equivalently computed as fn(s) = u1. The cases considered in the original FDGQR correspond to either (i) real y, θ or (ii) real y and imaginary θ. Both cases are covered by the Stieltjes theorem, that yields in case (i) real positive h, hˆ and trivial r, rˆ, and in case (ii) real positive h,r and trivial hˆ,rˆ. This result allowed us a simple interpretation of (62) as the staggered nite-dierence approximation of the underlying PDE problem [2]. For PDEs in more than one variables (including topologically rich data-manifolds), a nite-dierence interpretation is obtained via a MIMO extensions in block form, e.g., [4, 3]. The main diculty of extending this approach to general passive problems is that the Stieltjes theory is no longer applicable. Moreover, the tridiagonal realization of a passive ROM transfer function (62) via the ladder network (63) cannot always be obtained in port-Hamiltonian form, i.e., the equivalent primary and dual conductors may change sign [1]. 100 Embedding of the Stieltjes problems, e.g., the case (i) was done by mapping h and hˆ into values of acoustic (or electromagnetic) impedance at grid cells, that required a special coordinate stretching (known as travel time coordinate transform) for continuous problems. Likewise, to circumvent possible non-positivity of conductors for the non-Stieltjes case, we introduce an additional complex s-dependent coordinate stretching, vanishing as s → ∞ [1]. This stretching applied in the discrete setting induces a diagonal factorization, removes oscillating coecients, and leads to an accurate embedding for moderate variations of the coecients of the continuum problems, i.e., it maps discrete coecients onto the values of their continuum counterparts. Not only does this embedding yields an approximate linear algebraic algorithm for the solution of the inverse problems for dissipative PDEs, it also leads to new insight into the properties of their ROM realizations. We will also discuss another approach to embedding, based on Krein-Nudelman theory [5], that results in special data-driven adaptive grids. References [1] Borcea, Liliana and Druskin, Vladimir and Zimmerling, Jörn, A reduced order model approach to inverse scattering in lossy layered media, Journal of Scientic Computing, V. 89, N1, pp. 136,2021 [2] Druskin, Vladimir and Knizhnerman, Leonid, Gaussian spectral rules for the three-point second dierences: I. A two-point positive denite problem in a semi-innite domain, SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis, V. 37, N 2, pp.403422, 1999 [3] Druskin, Vladimir and Mamonov, Alexander V and Zaslavsky, Mikhail, Distance preserving model order reduction of graph-Laplacians and cluster analysis, Druskin, Vladimir and Mamonov, Alexander V and Zaslavsky, Mikhail, Journal of Scientic Computing, V. 90, N 1, pp 130, 2022 [4] Druskin, Vladimir and Moskow, Shari and Zaslavsky, Mikhail LippmannSchwingerLanczos algorithm for inverse scattering problems, Inverse Problems, V. 37, N. 7, 2021, [5] Mark Adolfovich Nudelman The Krein String and Characteristic Functions of Maximal Dissipative Operators, Journal of Mathematical Sciences, 2004, V 124, pp 49184934 Go back to Plenary Speakers Go back to Speakers Go back 

   more » « less
4. The role of diversity in data‐driven analysis of multi‐subject fMRI data: Comparison of approaches based on independence and sparsity using global performance metrics

   https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.24389  

   Long, Qunfang ; Bhinge, Suchita ; Levin‐Schwartz, Yuri ; Boukouvalas, Zois ; Calhoun, Vince D. ; Adalı, Tülay ( September 2018 , Human Brain Mapping)

   Data‐driven methods have been widely used in functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) data analysis. They extract latent factors, generally, through the use of a simple generative model. Independent component analysis (ICA) and dictionary learning (DL) are two popular data‐driven methods that are based on two different forms of diversity—statistical properties of the data—statistical independence for ICA and sparsity for DL. Despite their popularity, the comparative advantage of emphasizing one property over another in the decomposition of fMRI data is not well understood. Such a comparison is made harder due to the differences in the modeling assumptions between ICA and DL, as well as within different ICA algorithms where each algorithm exploits a different form of diversity. In this paper, we propose the use of objective global measures, such as time course frequency power ratio, network connection summary, and graph theoretical metrics, to gain insight into the role that different types of diversity have on the analysis of fMRI data. Four ICA algorithms that account for different types of diversity and one DL algorithm are studied. We apply these algorithms to real fMRI data collected from patients with schizophrenia and healthy controls. Our results suggest that no one particular method has the best performance using all metrics, implying that the optimal method will change depending on the goal of the analysis. However, we note that in none of the scenarios we test the highly popular Infomax provides the best performance, demonstrating the cost of exploiting limited form of diversity.

    

   more » « less
5. The Deep Learning Epilepsy Detection Challenge: Design, Implementation, and Test of a New Crowd-Sourced AI Challenge Ecosystem

   Kiral, Isabell ; Roy, Subhrajit ; Mummert, Todd ; Braz, Alan ; Tsay, Jason ; Tang, Jianbin ; Asif, Umar ; Schaffter, Thomas ; Mehmet, Eren ; Picone, Joseph ; et al ( April 2019 , Challenges in Machine Learning Competitions for All (CiML))

   null (Ed.)

   The DeepLearningEpilepsyDetectionChallenge: design, implementation, andtestofanewcrowd-sourced AIchallengeecosystem Isabell Kiral*, Subhrajit Roy*, Todd Mummert*, Alan Braz*, Jason Tsay, Jianbin Tang, Umar Asif, Thomas Schaffter, Eren Mehmet, The IBM Epilepsy Consortium◊ , Joseph Picone, Iyad Obeid, Bruno De Assis Marques, Stefan Maetschke, Rania Khalaf†, Michal Rosen-Zvi† , Gustavo Stolovitzky† , Mahtab Mirmomeni† , Stefan Harrer† * These authors contributed equally to this work † Corresponding authors: rkhalaf@us.ibm.com, rosen@il.ibm.com, gustavo@us.ibm.com, mahtabm@au1.ibm.com, sharrer@au.ibm.com ◊ Members of the IBM Epilepsy Consortium are listed in the Acknowledgements section J. Picone and I. Obeid are with Temple University, USA. T. Schaffter is with Sage Bionetworks, USA. E. Mehmet is with the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, USA. All other authors are with IBM Research in USA, Israel and Australia. Introduction This decade has seen an ever-growing number of scientific fields benefitting from the advances in machine learning technology and tooling. More recently, this trend reached the medical domain, with applications reaching from cancer diagnosis [1] to the development of brain-machine-interfaces [2]. While Kaggle has pioneered the crowd-sourcing of machine learning challenges to incentivise data scientists from around the world to advance algorithm and model design, the increasing complexity of problem statements demands of participants to be expert data scientists, deeply knowledgeable in at least one other scientific domain, and competent software engineers with access to large compute resources. People who match this description are few and far between, unfortunately leading to a shrinking pool of possible participants and a loss of experts dedicating their time to solving important problems. Participation is even further restricted in the context of any challenge run on confidential use cases or with sensitive data. Recently, we designed and ran a deep learning challenge to crowd-source the development of an automated labelling system for brain recordings, aiming to advance epilepsy research. A focus of this challenge, run internally in IBM, was the development of a platform that lowers the barrier of entry and therefore mitigates the risk of excluding interested parties from participating. The challenge: enabling wide participation With the goal to run a challenge that mobilises the largest possible pool of participants from IBM (global), we designed a use case around previous work in epileptic seizure prediction [3]. In this “Deep Learning Epilepsy Detection Challenge”, participants were asked to develop an automatic labelling system to reduce the time a clinician would need to diagnose patients with epilepsy. Labelled training and blind validation data for the challenge were generously provided by Temple University Hospital (TUH) [4]. TUH also devised a novel scoring metric for the detection of seizures that was used as basis for algorithm evaluation [5]. In order to provide an experience with a low barrier of entry, we designed a generalisable challenge platform under the following principles: 1. No participant should need to have in-depth knowledge of the specific domain. (i.e. no participant should need to be a neuroscientist or epileptologist.) 2. No participant should need to be an expert data scientist. 3. No participant should need more than basic programming knowledge. (i.e. no participant should need to learn how to process fringe data formats and stream data efficiently.) 4. No participant should need to provide their own computing resources. In addition to the above, our platform should further • guide participants through the entire process from sign-up to model submission, • facilitate collaboration, and • provide instant feedback to the participants through data visualisation and intermediate online leaderboards. The platform The architecture of the platform that was designed and developed is shown in Figure 1. The entire system consists of a number of interacting components. (1) A web portal serves as the entry point to challenge participation, providing challenge information, such as timelines and challenge rules, and scientific background. The portal also facilitated the formation of teams and provided participants with an intermediate leaderboard of submitted results and a final leaderboard at the end of the challenge. (2) IBM Watson Studio [6] is the umbrella term for a number of services offered by IBM. Upon creation of a user account through the web portal, an IBM Watson Studio account was automatically created for each participant that allowed users access to IBM's Data Science Experience (DSX), the analytics engine Watson Machine Learning (WML), and IBM's Cloud Object Storage (COS) [7], all of which will be described in more detail in further sections. (3) The user interface and starter kit were hosted on IBM's Data Science Experience platform (DSX) and formed the main component for designing and testing models during the challenge. DSX allows for real-time collaboration on shared notebooks between team members. A starter kit in the form of a Python notebook, supporting the popular deep learning libraries TensorFLow [8] and PyTorch [9], was provided to all teams to guide them through the challenge process. Upon instantiation, the starter kit loaded necessary python libraries and custom functions for the invisible integration with COS and WML. In dedicated spots in the notebook, participants could write custom pre-processing code, machine learning models, and post-processing algorithms. The starter kit provided instant feedback about participants' custom routines through data visualisations. Using the notebook only, teams were able to run the code on WML, making use of a compute cluster of IBM's resources. The starter kit also enabled submission of the final code to a data storage to which only the challenge team had access. (4) Watson Machine Learning provided access to shared compute resources (GPUs). Code was bundled up automatically in the starter kit and deployed to and run on WML. WML in turn had access to shared storage from which it requested recorded data and to which it stored the participant's code and trained models. (5) IBM's Cloud Object Storage held the data for this challenge. Using the starter kit, participants could investigate their results as well as data samples in order to better design custom algorithms. (6) Utility Functions were loaded into the starter kit at instantiation. This set of functions included code to pre-process data into a more common format, to optimise streaming through the use of the NutsFlow and NutsML libraries [10], and to provide seamless access to the all IBM services used. Not captured in the diagram is the final code evaluation, which was conducted in an automated way as soon as code was submitted though the starter kit, minimising the burden on the challenge organising team. Figure 1: High-level architecture of the challenge platform Measuring success The competitive phase of the "Deep Learning Epilepsy Detection Challenge" ran for 6 months. Twenty-five teams, with a total number of 87 scientists and software engineers from 14 global locations participated. All participants made use of the starter kit we provided and ran algorithms on IBM's infrastructure WML. Seven teams persisted until the end of the challenge and submitted final solutions. The best performing solutions reached seizure detection performances which allow to reduce hundred-fold the time eliptologists need to annotate continuous EEG recordings. Thus, we expect the developed algorithms to aid in the diagnosis of epilepsy by significantly shortening manual labelling time. Detailed results are currently in preparation for publication. Equally important to solving the scientific challenge, however, was to understand whether we managed to encourage participation from non-expert data scientists. Figure 2: Primary occupation as reported by challenge participants Out of the 40 participants for whom we have occupational information, 23 reported Data Science or AI as their main job description, 11 reported being a Software Engineer, and 2 people had expertise in Neuroscience. Figure 2 shows that participants had a variety of specialisations, including some that are in no way related to data science, software engineering, or neuroscience. No participant had deep knowledge and experience in data science, software engineering and neuroscience. Conclusion Given the growing complexity of data science problems and increasing dataset sizes, in order to solve these problems, it is imperative to enable collaboration between people with differences in expertise with a focus on inclusiveness and having a low barrier of entry. We designed, implemented, and tested a challenge platform to address exactly this. Using our platform, we ran a deep-learning challenge for epileptic seizure detection. 87 IBM employees from several business units including but not limited to IBM Research with a variety of skills, including sales and design, participated in this highly technical challenge. 

   more » « less