skip to main content


Title: Explaining Deep Neural Network Models with Adversarial Gradient Integration

Deep neural networks (DNNs) have became one of the most high performing tools in a broad rangeof machine learning areas. However, the multilayer non-linearity of the network architectures preventus from gaining a better understanding of the models’ predictions. Gradient based attributionmethods (e.g., Integrated Gradient (IG)) that decipher input features’ contribution to the predictiontask have been shown to be highly effective yet requiring a reference input as the anchor for explainingmodel’s output. The performance of DNN model interpretation can be quite inconsistent withregard to the choice of references. Here we propose an Adversarial Gradient Integration (AGI) methodthat integrates the gradients from adversarial examples to the target example along the curve of steepestascent to calculate the resulting contributions from all input features. Our method doesn’t rely onthe choice of references, hence can avoid the ambiguity and inconsistency sourced from the referenceselection. We demonstrate the performance of our AGI method and compare with competing methodsin explaining image classification results. Code is available from https://github.com/pd90506/AGI.

 
more » « less
Award ID(s):
1724227
NSF-PAR ID:
10288214
Author(s) / Creator(s):
; ;
Date Published:
Journal Name:
Thirtieth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI)
Page Range / eLocation ID:
2876 to 2883
Format(s):
Medium: X
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. Despite the fundamental distinction between adversarial and natural training (AT and NT), AT methods generally adopt momentum SGD (MSGD) for the outer optimization. This paper aims to analyze this choice by investigating the overlooked role of outer optimization in AT. Our exploratory evaluations reveal that AT induces higher gradient norm and variance compared to NT. This phenomenon hinders the outer optimization in AT since the convergence rate of MSGD is highly dependent on the variance of the gradients. To this end, we propose an optimization method called ENGM which regularizes the contribution of each input example to the average mini-batch gradients. We prove that the convergence rate of ENGM is independent of the variance of the gradients, and thus, it is suitable for AT. We introduce a trick to reduce the computational cost of ENGM using empirical observations on the correlation between the norm of gradients w.r.t. the network parameters and input examples. Our extensive evaluations and ablation studies on CIFAR-10, CIFAR-100, and TinyImageNet demonstrate that ENGM and its variants consistently improve the performance of a wide range of AT methods. Furthermore, ENGM alleviates major shortcomings of AT including robust overfitting and high sensitivity to hyperparameter settings. 
    more » « less
  2. 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. By mimicking biomimetic synaptic processes, the success of artificial intelligence (AI) has been astounding with various applications such as driving automation, big data analysis, and natural-language processing.[1-4] Due to a large quantity of data transmission between the separated memory unit and the logic unit, the classical computing system with von Neumann architecture consumes excessive energy and has a significant processing delay.[5] Furthermore, the speed difference between the two units also causes extra delay, which is referred to as the memory wall.[6, 7] To keep pace with the rapid growth of AI applications, enhanced hardware systems that particularly feature an energy-efficient and high-speed hardware system need to be secured. The novel neuromorphic computing system, an in-memory architecture with low power consumption, has been suggested as an alternative to the conventional system. Memristors with analog-type resistive switching behavior are a promising candidate for implementing the neuromorphic computing system since the devices can modulate the conductance with cycles that act as synaptic weights to process input signals and store information.[8, 9]

    The memristor has sparked tremendous interest due to its simple two-terminal structure, including top electrode (TE), bottom electrode (BE), and an intermediate resistive switching (RS) layer. Many oxide materials, including HfO2, Ta2O5, and IGZO, have extensively been studied as an RS layer of memristors. Silicon dioxide (SiO2) features 3D structural conformity with the conventional CMOS technology and high wafer-scale homogeneity, which has benefited modern microelectronic devices as dielectric and/or passivation layers. Therefore, the use of SiO2as a memristor RS layer for neuromorphic computing is expected to be compatible with current Si technology with minimal processing and material-related complexities.

    In this work, we proposed SiO2-based memristor and investigated switching behaviors metallized with different reduction potentials by applying pure Cu and Ag, and their alloys with varied ratios. Heavily doped p-type silicon was chosen as BE in order to exclude any effects of the BE ions on the memristor performance. We previously reported that the selection of TE is crucial for achieving a high memory window and stable switching performance. According to the study which compares the roles of Cu (switching stabilizer) and Ag (large switching window performer) TEs for oxide memristors, we have selected the TE materials and their alloys to engineer the SiO2-based memristor characteristics. The Ag TE leads to a larger memory window of the SiO2memristor, but the device shows relatively large variation and less reliability. On the other hand, the Cu TE device presents uniform gradual switching behavior which is in line with our previous report that Cu can be served as a stabilizer, but with small on/off ratio.[9] These distinct performances with Cu and Ag metallization leads us to utilize a Cu/Ag alloy as the TE. Various compositions of Cu/Ag were examined for the optimization of the memristor TEs. With a Cu/Ag alloying TE with optimized ratio, our SiO2based memristor demonstrates uniform switching behavior and memory window for analog switching applications. Also, it shows ideal potentiation and depression synaptic behavior under the positive/negative spikes (pulse train).

    In conclusion, the SiO2memristors with different metallization were established. To tune the property of RS layer, the sputtering conditions of RS were varied. To investigate the influence of TE selections on switching performance of memristor, we integrated Cu, Ag and Cu/Ag alloy as TEs and compared the switch characteristics. Our encouraging results clearly demonstrate that SiO2with Cu/Ag is a promising memristor device with synaptic switching behavior in neuromorphic computing applications.

    Acknowledgement

    This work was supported by the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF) Award No. ECCS-1931088. S.L. and H.W.S. acknowledge the support from the Improvement of Measurement Standards and Technology for Mechanical Metrology (Grant No. 22011044) by KRISS.

    References

    [1] Younget al.,IEEE Computational Intelligence Magazine,vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 55-75, 2018.

    [2] Hadsellet al.,Journal of Field Robotics,vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 120-144, 2009.

    [3] Najafabadiet al.,Journal of Big Data,vol. 2, no. 1, p. 1, 2015.

    [4] Zhaoet al.,Applied Physics Reviews,vol. 7, no. 1, 2020.

    [5] Zidanet al.,Nature Electronics,vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 22-29, 2018.

    [6] Wulfet al.,SIGARCH Comput. Archit. News,vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 20–24, 1995.

    [7] Wilkes,SIGARCH Comput. Archit. News,vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 4–6, 1995.

    [8] Ielminiet al.,Nature Electronics,vol. 1, no. 6, pp. 333-343, 2018.

    [9] Changet al.,Nano Letters,vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 1297-1301, 2010.

    [10] Qinet al., Physica Status Solidi (RRL) - Rapid Research Letters, pssr.202200075R1, In press, 2022.

     
    more » « less
  4. Abstract

    Deep neural networks (DNNs) are widely used to handle many difficult tasks, such as image classification and malware detection, and achieve outstanding performance. However, recent studies on adversarial examples, which have maliciously undetectable perturbations added to their original samples that are indistinguishable by human eyes but mislead the machine learning approaches, show that machine learning models are vulnerable to security attacks. Though various adversarial retraining techniques have been developed in the past few years, none of them is scalable. In this paper, we propose a new iterative adversarial retraining approach to robustify the model and to reduce the effectiveness of adversarial inputs on DNN models. The proposed method retrains the model with both Gaussian noise augmentation and adversarial generation techniques for better generalization. Furthermore, the ensemble model is utilized during the testing phase in order to increase the robust test accuracy. The results from our extensive experiments demonstrate that the proposed approach increases the robustness of the DNN model against various adversarial attacks, specifically, fast gradient sign attack, Carlini and Wagner (C&W) attack, Projected Gradient Descent (PGD) attack, and DeepFool attack. To be precise, the robust classifier obtained by our proposed approach can maintain a performance accuracy of 99% on average on the standard test set. Moreover, we empirically evaluate the runtime of two of the most effective adversarial attacks, i.e., C&W attack and BIM attack, to find that the C&W attack can utilize GPU for faster adversarial example generation than the BIM attack can. For this reason, we further develop a parallel implementation of the proposed approach. This parallel implementation makes the proposed approach scalable for large datasets and complex models.

     
    more » « less
  5. Abstract

    Methods of explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) are used in geoscientific applications to gain insights into the decision-making strategy of neural networks (NNs), highlighting which features in the input contribute the most to a NN prediction. Here, we discuss our “lesson learned” that the task of attributing a prediction to the input does not have a single solution. Instead, the attribution results depend greatly on the considered baseline that the XAI method utilizes—a fact that has been overlooked in the geoscientific literature. The baseline is a reference point to which the prediction is compared so that the prediction can be understood. This baseline can be chosen by the user or is set by construction in the method’s algorithm—often without the user being aware of that choice. We highlight that different baselines can lead to different insights for different science questions and, thus, should be chosen accordingly. To illustrate the impact of the baseline, we use a large ensemble of historical and future climate simulations forced with the shared socioeconomic pathway 3-7.0 (SSP3-7.0) scenario and train a fully connected NN to predict the ensemble- and global-mean temperature (i.e., the forced global warming signal) given an annual temperature map from an individual ensemble member. We then use various XAI methods and different baselines to attribute the network predictions to the input. We show that attributions differ substantially when considering different baselines, because they correspond to answering different science questions. We conclude by discussing important implications and considerations about the use of baselines in XAI research.

    Significance Statement

    In recent years, methods of explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) have found great application in geoscientific applications, because they can be used to attribute the predictions of neural networks (NNs) to the input and interpret them physically. Here, we highlight that the attributions—and the physical interpretation—depend greatly on the choice of the baseline—a fact that has been overlooked in the geoscientific literature. We illustrate this dependence for a specific climate task, in which a NN is trained to predict the ensemble- and global-mean temperature (i.e., the forced global warming signal) given an annual temperature map from an individual ensemble member. We show that attributions differ substantially when considering different baselines, because they correspond to answering different science questions.

     
    more » « less