skip to main content


Title: Active Learning with Maximum Margin Sparse Gaussian Processes
We present a maximum-margin sparse Gaussian Process (MM-SGP) for active learning (AL) of classification models for multi-class problems. The proposed model makes novel extensions to a GP by integrating maximum-margin constraints into its learning process, aiming to further improve its predictive power while keeping its inherent capability for uncertainty quantification. The MM constraints ensure small "effective size" of the model, which allows MM-SGP to provide good predictive performance by using limited" active" data samples, a critical property for AL. Furthermore, as a Gaussian process model, MM-SGP will output both the predicted class distribution and the predictive variance, both of which are essential for defining a sampling function effective to improve the decision boundaries of a large number of classes simultaneously. Finally, the sparse nature of MM-SGP ensures that it can be efficiently trained by solving a low-rank convex dual problem. Experiment results on both synthetic and real-world datasets show the effectiveness and efficiency of the proposed AL model.  more » « less
Award ID(s):
1814450
NSF-PAR ID:
10253155
Author(s) / Creator(s):
;
Date Published:
Journal Name:
International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics
Page Range / eLocation ID:
406-414
Format(s):
Medium: X
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. 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
  2. Gaussian process (GP) emulator has been used as a surrogate model for predicting force field and molecular potential, to overcome the computational bottleneck of ab initio molecular dynamics simulation. Integrating both atomic force and energy in predictions was found to be more accurate than using energy alone, yet it requires O(( NM) 3 ) computational operations for computing the likelihood function and making predictions, where N is the number of atoms and M is the number of simulated configurations in the training sample due to the inversion of a large covariance matrix. The high computational cost limits its applications to the simulation of small molecules. The computational challenge of using both gradient information and function values in GPs was recently noticed in machine learning communities, whereas conventional approximation methods may not work well. Here, we introduce a new approach, the atomized force field model, that integrates both force and energy in the emulator with many fewer computational operations. The drastic reduction in computation is achieved by utilizing the naturally sparse covariance structure that satisfies the constraints of the energy conservation and permutation symmetry of atoms. The efficient machine learning algorithm extends the limits of its applications on larger molecules under the same computational budget, with nearly no loss of predictive accuracy. Furthermore, our approach contains an uncertainty assessment of predictions of atomic forces and energies, useful for developing a sequential design over the chemical input space. 
    more » « less
  3. Predicting the process of porosity-based ductile damage in polycrystalline metallic materials is an essential practical topic. Ductile damage and its precursors are represented by extreme values in stress and material state quantities, the spatial probability density function (PDF) of which are highly non-Gaussian with strong fat tails. Traditional deterministic forecasts utilizing sophisticated continuum-based physical models generally lack in representing the statistics of structural evolution during material deformation. Computational tools which do represent complex structural evolution are typically expensive. The inevitable model error and the lack of uncertainty quantification may also induce significant forecast biases, especially in predicting the extreme events associated with ductile damage. In this paper, a data-driven statistical reduced-order modeling framework is developed to provide a probabilistic forecast of the deformation process of a polycrystal aggregate leading to porosity-based ductile damage with uncertainty quantification. The framework starts with computing the time evolution of the leading few moments of specific state variables from the spatiotemporal solution of full- field polycrystal simulations. Then a sparse model identification algorithm based on causation entropy, including essential physical constraints, is utilized to discover the governing equations of these moments. An approximate solution of the time evolution of the PDF is obtained from the predicted moments exploiting the maximum entropy principle. Numerical experiments based on polycrystal realizations of a representative body-centered cubic (BCC) tantalum illustrate a skillful reduced-order model in characterizing the time evolution of the non-Gaussian PDF of the von Mises stress and quantifying the probability of extreme events. The learning process also reveals that the mean stress is not simply an additive forcing to drive the higher-order moments and extreme events. Instead, it interacts with the latter in a strongly nonlinear and multiplicative fashion. In addition, the calibrated moment equations provide a reasonably accurate forecast when applied to the realizations outside the training data set, indicating the robustness of the model and the skill for extrapolation. Finally, an information-based measurement is employed to quantitatively justify that the leading four moments are sufficient to characterize the crucial highly non-Gaussian features throughout the entire deformation history considered. 
    more » « less
  4. Abstract

    The Antarctic ice sheet (AIS) will be a dominant contributor to global mean sea level rise in the 21st century but remains a major source of uncertainty. The Ice Sheet Model Intercomparison for CMIP6 (ISMIP6) is an ensemble of continental‐scale models for studying the evolution of the AIS and projecting its future contribution to sea level. Due to their complexity and computational cost, ISMIP6 simulations are sparse and generated infrequently. Emulators are smaller‐scale models that approximate ISMs and enable experimentation and exploration into the drivers of sea level change. We introduce a neural network (NN) emulator to approximate the ISMIP6 ensemble, using a variational Long Short‐Term Memory (LSTM) with Monte Carlo dropout to quantify single‐projection uncertainty. The proposed NN emulator is compared to a Gaussian Process (GP) emulator on four criteria: accuracy of point estimates and predictive distributions of individual model projections, approximation of the ensemble projections, and model training time. The NN predicts more accurately on single projections, with a mean absolute error of 0.46 mm Sea Level Equivalent (SLE) versus 0.73 mm SLE for the GP, and has more accurate uncertainty estimates. The NN emulator also better approximates the ensemble distribution of ISMIP6 model projections, with a Kullback‐Leibler divergence of 18.26 versus 199.14 for GP at the projection year 2100. The NN enables more accurate experimentation with a reduced runtime, offering a new tool for understanding the important role of regional precipitation, ice sheet drainage systems, and interannual and longer timescale dynamics.

     
    more » « less
  5. null (Ed.)
    We consider learning a sparse pairwise Markov Random Field (MRF) with continuous valued variables from i.i.d samples. We adapt the algorithm of Vuffray et al. (2019) to this setting and provide finite- sample analysis revealing sample complexity scaling logarithmically with the number of variables, as in the discrete and Gaussian settings. Our approach is applicable to a large class of pairwise MRFs with continuous variables and also has desirable asymptotic properties, including consistency and normality under mild conditions. Further, we establish that the population version of the optimization criterion employed by Vuffray et al. (2019) can be interpreted as local maximum likelihood estimation (MLE). As part of our analysis, we introduce a robust variation of sparse linear regression à la Lasso, which may be of interest in its own right. 
    more » « less