More Like this

1. Moisture Estimation in Woodchips Using IIoT Wi-Fi and Machine Learning Techniques

   https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-323-85159-6.50276-1  

   Suthar, K. ; He, Q.P. ( January 2022 , Computer aided chemical engineering)

   For the pulping process in a pulp & paper plant that uses woodchips as raw material, the moisture content (MC) of the woodchips is a major process disturbance that affects product quality and consumption of energy, water, and chemicals. Existing woodchip MC sensing technologies have not been widely adopted by the industry due to unreliable performance and/or high maintenance requirements that can hardly be met in a manufacturing environment. To address these limitations, we propose a non-destructive, economic, and robust woodchip MC sensing approach utilizing channel state information (CSI) from industrial Internet-of-Things (IIoT) based Wi-Fi. While these IIoT devices are small, low-cost, and rugged to stand for harsh environment, they do have their limitations such as the raw CSI data are often very noisy and sensitive to woodchip packing. Thus, direct application of machine learning (ML) algorithms leads to poor performance. To address this, statistics pattern analysis (SPA) is utilized to extract physically and statistically meaningful features from the raw CSI data, which are sensitive to woodchip MC but not to packing. The SPA features are then used for developing multiclass classification models as well as regression models using various linear and nonlinear ML techniques to provide potential solutions to woodchip MC estimation for the pulp and paper industry. 

   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. A MACHINE LEARNING APPROACH FOR IMPACT DAMAGE QUANTIFICATION IN POLYMER MATRIX COMPOSITES

   https://doi.org/10.12783/asc37/36412  

   BERKOWITZ, KATHERINE ; GUHA, RISHABH D. ; OLUWAJIRE, OLUWATIMILEHIN ; GRACE, LANDON ( September 2022 , American Society for Composites)

   Largely due to superior properties compared to traditional materials, the use of polymer matrix composites (PMC) has been expanding in several industries such as aerospace, transportation, defense, and marine. However, the anisotropy and nonhomogeneity of these structures contribute to the difficulty in evaluating structural integrity; damage sites can occur at multiple locations and length scales and are hard to track over time. This can lead to unpredictable and expensive failure of a safety-critical structure, thus creating a need for non-destructive evaluation (NDE) techniques which can detect and quantify small-scale damage sites and track their progression. Our research group has improved upon classical microwave techniques to address these needs; utilizing a custom device to move a sample within a resonant cavity and create a spatial map of relative permittivity. We capitalize on the inevitable presence of moisture within the polymer network to detect damage. The differing migration inclinations of absorbed water molecules in a pristine versus a damaged composite alters the respective concentrations of the two chemical states of moisture. The greater concentration of free water molecules residing in the damage sites exhibit highly different relative permittivity when compared to the higher ratio of polymer-bound water molecules in the undamaged areas. Currently, the technique has shown the ability to detect impact damage across a range of damage levels and gravimetric moisture contents but is not able to specifically quantify damage extent with regards to impact energy level. The applicability of machine learning (ML) to composite materials is substantial, with uses in areas like manufacturing and design, prediction of structural properties, and damage detection. Using traditional NDE techniques in conjunction with supervised or unsupervised ML has been shown to improve the accuracy, reliability, or efficiency of the existing methods. In this work, we explore the use of a combined unsupervised/supervised ML approach to determine a damage boundary and quantification of single-impact specimens. Dry composite specimens were damaged via drop tower to induce one central impact site of 0, 2, or 3 Joules. After moisture exposure, Entrepreneur Dr, Raleigh, North Carolina 27695, U.S.A. 553 each specimen underwent dielectric mapping, and spatial permittivity maps were created at a variety of gravimetric moisture contents. An unsupervised K-means clustering algorithm was applied to the dielectric data to segment the levels of damage and define a damage boundary. Subsequently, supervised learning was used to quantify damage using features including but not limited to thickness, moisture content, permittivity values of each cluster, and average distance between points in each cluster. A regression model was trained on several samples with impact energy as the predicted variable. Evaluation was then performed based on prediction accuracy for samples in which the impact energies are not known to the model.

    

   more » « less
4. Robust and simplified machine learning identification of pitfall trap‐collected ground beetles at the continental scale

   https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.6905  

   Blair, Jarrett ; Weiser, Michael D. ; Kaspari, Michael ; Miller, Matthew ; Siler, Cameron ; Marshall, Katie E. ( November 2020 , Ecology and Evolution)

   Insect populations are changing rapidly, and monitoring these changes is essential for understanding the causes and consequences of such shifts. However, large‐scale insect identification projects are time‐consuming and expensive when done solely by human identifiers. Machine learning offers a possible solution to help collect insect data quickly and efficiently.

   Here, we outline a methodology for training classification models to identify pitfall trap‐collected insects from image data and then apply the method to identify ground beetles (Carabidae). All beetles were collected by the National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON), a continental scale ecological monitoring project with sites across the United States. We describe the procedures for image collection, image data extraction, data preparation, and model training, and compare the performance of five machine learning algorithms and two classification methods (hierarchical vs. single‐level) identifying ground beetles from the species to subfamily level. All models were trained using pre‐extracted feature vectors, not raw image data. Our methodology allows for data to be extracted from multiple individuals within the same image thus enhancing time efficiency, utilizes relatively simple models that allow for direct assessment of model performance, and can be performed on relatively small datasets.

   The best performing algorithm, linear discriminant analysis (LDA), reached an accuracy of 84.6% at the species level when naively identifying species, which was further increased to >95% when classifications were limited by known local species pools. Model performance was negatively correlated with taxonomic specificity, with the LDA model reaching an accuracy of ~99% at the subfamily level. When classifying carabid species not included in the training dataset at higher taxonomic levels species, the models performed significantly better than if classifications were made randomly. We also observed greater performance when classifications were made using the hierarchical classification method compared to the single‐level classification method at higher taxonomic levels.

   The general methodology outlined here serves as a proof‐of‐concept for classifying pitfall trap‐collected organisms using machine learning algorithms, and the image data extraction methodology may be used for nonmachine learning uses. We propose that integration of machine learning in large‐scale identification pipelines will increase efficiency and lead to a greater flow of insect macroecological data, with the potential to be expanded for use with other noninsect taxa.

    

   more » « less
5. Feature Learning for Neural-Network-Based Positioning with Channel State Information

   https://doi.org/10.1109/IEEECONF53345.2021.9723124  

   Gonultas, Emre ; Taner, Sueda ; Huang, Howard ; Studer, Christoph ( October 2021 , Asilomar Conference on Signals, Systems, and Computers)

   Recent channel state information (CSI)-based positioning pipelines rely on deep neural networks (DNNs) in order to learn a mapping from estimated CSI to position. Since real-world communication transceivers suffer from hardware impairments, CSI-based positioning systems typically rely on features that are designed by hand. In this paper, we propose a CSI-based positioning pipeline that directly takes raw CSI measurements and learns features using a structured DNN in order to generate probability maps describing the likelihood of the transmitter being at pre-defined grid points. To further improve the positioning accuracy of moving user equipments, we propose to fuse a time-series of learned CSI features or a time-series of probability maps. To demonstrate the efficacy of our methods, we perform experiments with real-world indoor line-of-sight (LoS) and nonLoS channel measurements. We show that CSI feature learning and time-series fusion can reduce the mean distance error by up to 2.5× compared to the state-of-the-art. 

   more » « less