More Like this

1. Data-driven Design of Context-aware Monitors for Hazard Prediction in Artificial Pancreas Systems

   https://doi.org/10.1109/DSN48987.2021.00058  

   Zhou, Xugui ; Ahmed, Bulbul ; Aylor, James H. ; Asare, Philip ; Alemzadeh, Homa ( June 2021 , 2021 51st Annual IEEE/IFIP International Conference on Dependable Systems and Networks (DSN))

   Medical Cyber-physical Systems (MCPS) are vulnerable to accidental or malicious faults that can target their controllers and cause safety hazards and harm to patients. This paper proposes a combined model and data-driven approach for designing context-aware monitors that can detect early signs of hazards and mitigate them in MCPS. We present a framework for formal specification of unsafe system context using Signal Temporal Logic (STL) combined with an optimization method for patient-specific refinement of STL formulas based on real or simulated faulty data from the closed-loop system for the generation of monitor logic. We evaluate our approach in simulation using two state-of-the-art closed-loop Artificial Pancreas Systems (APS). The results show the context-aware monitor achieves up to 1.4 times increase in average hazard prediction accuracy (F1score) over several baseline monitors, reduces false-positive and false-negative rates, and enables hazard mitigation with a 54% success rate while decreasing the average risk for patients.
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. Duality-Based Nested Controller Synthesis from STL Specifications for Stochastic Linear Systems

   https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-00151-3  

   Jha, Susmit ; Raj, Sunny ; Jha, Sumit Kumar ; Shankar, Natarajan ( January 2018 , 16th International Conference on Formal Modeling and Analysis of Timed Systems, FORMATS 2018)

   We propose an automatic synthesis technique to generate provably correct controllers of stochastic linear dynamical systems for Signal Temporal Logic (STL) specifications. While formal synthesis problems can be directly formulated as exists-forall constraints, the quantifier alternation restricts the scalability of such an approach. We use the duality between a system and its proof of correctness to partially alleviate this challenge. We decompose the controller synthesis into two subproblems, each addressing orthogonal concerns - stabilization with respect to the noise, and meeting the STL specification. The overall controller is a nested controller comprising of the feedback controller for noise cancellation and an open loop controller for STL satisfaction. The correct-by-construction compositional synthesis of this nested controller relies on using the guarantees of the feedback controller instead of the controller itself. We use a linear feedback controller as the stabilizing controller for linear systems with bounded additive noise and over-approximate its ellipsoid stability guarantee with a polytope. We then use this over-approximation to formulate a mixed-integer linear programming (MILP) problem to synthesize an open-loop controller that satisfies STL specifications.
4. Hazard analysis for human-on-the-loop interactions in sUAS systems

   https://doi.org/10.1145/3468264.3468534  

   Vierhauser, Michael ; Islam, Md Nafee ; Agrawal, Ankit ; Cleland-Huang, Jane ; Mason, James ( August 2021 , Joint European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering)

   With the rise of new AI technologies, autonomous systems are moving towards a paradigm in which increasing levels of responsibility are shifted from the human to the system, creating a transition from human-in-the-loop systems to human-on-the-loop (HoTL) systems. This has a significant impact on the safety analysis of such systems, as new types of errors occurring at the boundaries of human-machine interactions need to be taken into consideration. Traditional safety analysis typically focuses on system-level hazards with little focus on user-related or user-induced hazards that can cause critical system failures. To address this issue, we construct domain-level safety analysis assets for sUAS (small unmanned aerial systems) applications and describe the process we followed to explicitly, and systematically identify Human Interaction Points (HiPs), Hazard Factors and Mitigations from system hazards. We evaluate our approach by first investigating the extent to which recent sUAS incidents are covered by our hazard trees, and second by performing a study with six domain experts using our hazard trees to identify and document hazards for sUAS usage scenarios. Our study showed that our hazard trees provided effective coverage for a wide variety of sUAS application scenarios and were useful for stimulating safety thinking and helping usersmore »to identify and potentially mitigate human-interaction hazards.« less
5. An STL-Based Formulation of Resilience in Cyber-Physical Systems

   Chen, Hongkai ; Lin, Shan ; Smolka, Scott A. ; Paoletti, Nicola ( August 2022 , Formal Modeling and Analysis of Timed Systems)

   Bogomolov, Sergiy ; Parker, David (Ed.)

   Resiliency is the ability to quickly recover from a violation and avoid future violations for as long as possible. Such a property is of fundamental importance for Cyber-Physical Systems (CPS), and yet, to date, there is no widely agreed-upon formal treatment of CPS resiliency. We present an STL-based framework for reasoning about resiliency in CPS in which resiliency has a syntactic characterization in the form of an STL-based Resiliency Specification (SRS). Given an arbitrary STL formula φ, time bounds α and β, the SRS of φ, Rα,β (φ), is the STL formula ¬φU[0,α]G[0,β)φ, specifying that recovery from a violation of φ occur within time α (recoverability), and subsequently that φ be maintained for duration β (durability). These R-expressions, which are atoms in our SRS logic, can be combined using STL operators, allowing one to express composite resiliency specifications, e.g., multiple SRSs must hold simultaneously, or the system must eventually be resilient. We define a quantitative semantics for SRSs in the form of a Resilience Satisfaction Value (ReSV) function r and prove its soundness and completeness w.r.t. STL’s Boolean semantics. The r-value for Rα,β (φ) atoms is a singleton set containing a pair quantifying recoverability and durability. The r-value for amore »composite SRS formula results in a set of non-dominated recoverability-durability pairs, given that the ReSVs of subformulas might not be directly comparable (e.g., one subformula has superior durability but worse recoverability than another). To the best of our knowledge, this is the first multi-dimensional quantitative semantics for an STL-based logic. Two case studies demonstrate the practical utility of our approach. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-15839-1_7« less