More Like this

1. A framework for quadratic form maximization over convex sets through nonconvex relaxations

   https://doi.org/10.1145/3406325.3451128  

   Bhattiprolu, Vijay ; Lee, Euiwoong ; Naor, Assaf ( January 2021 , STOC'21)

   null (Ed.)

   We investigate the approximability of the following optimization problem. The input is an n× n matrix A=(Aij) with real entries and an origin-symmetric convex body K⊂ ℝn that is given by a membership oracle. The task is to compute (or approximate) the maximum of the quadratic form ∑i=1n∑j=1n Aij xixj=⟨ x,Ax⟩ as x ranges over K. This is a rich and expressive family of optimization problems; for different choices of matrices A and convex bodies K it includes a diverse range of optimization problems like max-cut, Grothendieck/non-commutative Grothendieck inequalities, small set expansion and more. While the literature studied these special cases using case-specific reasoning, here we develop a general methodology for treatment of the approximability and inapproximability aspects of these questions. The underlying geometry of K plays a critical role; we show under commonly used complexity assumptions that polytime constant-approximability necessitates that K has type-2 constant that grows slowly with n. However, we show that even when the type-2 constant is bounded, this problem sometimes exhibits strong hardness of approximation. Thus, even within the realm of type-2 bodies, the approximability landscape is nuanced and subtle. However, the link that we establish between optimization and geometry of Banach spaces allows us to devise a generic algorithmic approach to the above problem. We associate to each convex body a new (higher dimensional) auxiliary set that is not convex, but is approximately convex when K has a bounded type-2 constant. If our auxiliary set has an approximate separation oracle, then we design an approximation algorithm for the original quadratic optimization problem, using an approximate version of the ellipsoid method. Even though our hardness result implies that such an oracle does not exist in general, this new question can be solved in specific cases of interest by implementing a range of classical tools from functional analysis, most notably the deep factorization theory of linear operators. Beyond encompassing the scenarios in the literature for which constant-factor approximation algorithms were found, our generic framework implies that that for convex sets with bounded type-2 constant, constant factor approximability is preserved under the following basic operations: (a) Subspaces, (b) Quotients, (c) Minkowski Sums, (d) Complex Interpolation. This yields a rich family of new examples where constant factor approximations are possible, which were beyond the reach of previous methods. We also show (under commonly used complexity assumptions) that for symmetric norms and unitarily invariant matrix norms the type-2 constant nearly characterizes the approximability of quadratic maximization. 

   more » « less
2. Exclusion volumes of convex bodies in high space dimensions: applications to virial coefficients and continuum percolation

   https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-5468/ac8c8b  

   Torquato, Salvatore ; Jiao, Yang ( September 2022 , Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment)

   Abstract Using the concepts of mixed volumes and quermassintegrals of convex geometry, we derive an exact formula for the exclusion volume v ex ( K ) for a general convex body K that applies in any space dimension. While our main interests concern the rotationally-averaged exclusion volume of a convex body with respect to another convex body, we also describe some results for the exclusion volumes for convex bodies with the same orientation. We show that the sphere minimizes the dimensionless exclusion volume v ex ( K )/ v ( K ) among all convex bodies, whether randomly oriented or uniformly oriented, for any d , where v ( K ) is the volume of K . When the bodies have the same orientation, the simplex maximizes the dimensionless exclusion volume for any d with a large- d asymptotic scaling behavior of 2 2 d / d 3/2 , which is to be contrasted with the corresponding scaling of 2 d for the sphere. We present explicit formulas for quermassintegrals W 0 ( K ), …, W d ( K ) for many different nonspherical convex bodies, including cubes, parallelepipeds, regular simplices, cross-polytopes, cylinders, spherocylinders, ellipsoids as well as lower-dimensional bodies, such as hyperplates and line segments. These results are utilized to determine the rotationally-averaged exclusion volume v ex ( K ) for these convex-body shapes for dimensions 2 through 12. While the sphere is the shape possessing the minimal dimensionless exclusion volume, we show that, among the convex bodies considered that are sufficiently compact, the simplex possesses the maximal v ex ( K )/ v ( K ) with a scaling behavior of 2 1.6618… d . Subsequently, we apply these results to determine the corresponding second virial coefficient B 2 ( K ) of the aforementioned hard hyperparticles. Our results are also applied to compute estimates of the continuum percolation threshold η c derived previously by the authors for systems of identical overlapping convex bodies. We conjecture that overlapping spheres possess the maximal value of η c among all identical nonzero-volume convex overlapping bodies for d ⩾ 2, randomly or uniformly oriented, and that, among all identical, oriented nonzero-volume convex bodies, overlapping simplices have the minimal value of η c for d ⩾ 2. 

   more » « less
3. A unifying framework of high-dimensional sparse estimation with dierence-of-convex (DC) regularization

   Cao, Shanshan ; Huo, Xiaoming ; Pang, Jong-Shi ( August 2021 , Statistical science)

   null (Ed.)

   Under the linear regression framework, we study the variable selection problem when the underlying model is assumed to have a small number of nonzero coefficients. Non-convex penalties in specic forms are well-studied in the literature for sparse estimation. A recent work, Ahn, Pang, and Xin (2017), has pointed out that nearly all existing non-convex penalties can be represented as difference-of-convex (DC) functions, which are the difference of two convex functions, while itself may not be convex. There is a large existing literature on optimization problems when their objectives and/or constraints involve DC functions. Efficient numerical solutions have been proposed. Under the DC framework, directional-stationary (d-stationary) solutions are considered, and they are usually not unique. In this paper, we show that under some mild conditions, a certain subset of d-stationary solutions in an optimization problem (with a DC objective) has some ideal statistical properties: namely, asymptotic estimation consistency, asymptotic model selection consistency, asymptotic efficiency. Our assumptions are either weaker than or comparable with those conditions that have been adopted in other existing works. This work shows that DC is a nice framework to offer a unied approach to these existing works where non-convex penalties are involved. Our work bridges the communities of optimization and statistics. 

   more » « less
4. Constant-hop spanners for more geometric intersection graphs, with even smaller size

   https://doi.org/10.4230/LIPIcs.SoCG.2023.23  

   Chan, Timothy M. ; Huang, Zhengcheng ( June 2023 , Proc. 39th International Symposium on Computational Geometry (SoCG 2023))

   Chambers, Erin W. ; Gudmundsson, Joachim (Ed.)

   In SoCG 2022, Conroy and Tóth presented several constructions of sparse, low-hop spanners in geometric intersection graphs, including an O(nlog n)-size 3-hop spanner for n disks (or fat convex objects) in the plane, and an O(nlog² n)-size 3-hop spanner for n axis-aligned rectangles in the plane. Their work left open two major questions: (i) can the size be made closer to linear by allowing larger constant stretch? and (ii) can near-linear size be achieved for more general classes of intersection graphs? We address both questions simultaneously, by presenting new constructions of constant-hop spanners that have almost linear size and that hold for a much larger class of intersection graphs. More precisely, we prove the existence of an O(1)-hop spanner for arbitrary string graphs with O(nα_k(n)) size for any constant k, where α_k(n) denotes the k-th function in the inverse Ackermann hierarchy. We similarly prove the existence of an O(1)-hop spanner for intersection graphs of d-dimensional fat objects with O(nα_k(n)) size for any constant k and d. We also improve on some of Conroy and Tóth’s specific previous results, in either the number of hops or the size: we describe an O(nlog n)-size 2-hop spanner for disks (or more generally objects with linear union complexity) in the plane, and an O(nlog n)-size 3-hop spanner for axis-aligned rectangles in the plane. Our proofs are all simple, using separator theorems, recursion, shifted quadtrees, and shallow cuttings. 

   more » « less
5. 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