More Like this

1. 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
2. Accelerating Simulation of Stiff Nonlinear Systems using Continuous-Time Echo State Networks

   Anantharaman, Ranjan ; Ma, Yingbo ; Gowda, Shashi ; Laughman, Chris ; Shah, Viral ; Edelman, Alan ; Rackauckas, Chris ( January 2021 , Proceedings of the AAAI 2021 Spring Symposium on Combining Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning with Physical Sciences)

   Lee, Jonghyun ; Darve, Eric F. ; Kitanidis, Peter K. ; Mahoney, Michael W. ; Karpatne, Anuj ; Farthing, Matthew W. ; Hesser, Tyler (Ed.)

   Modern design, control, and optimization often require multiple expensive simulations of highly nonlinear stiff models. These costs can be amortized by training a cheap surrogate of the full model, which can then be used repeatedly. Here we present a general data-driven method, the continuous time echo state network (CTESN), for generating surrogates of nonlinear ordinary differential equations with dynamics at widely separated timescales. We empirically demonstrate the ability to accelerate a physically motivated scalable model of a heating system by 98x while maintaining relative error of within 0.2 %. We showcase the ability for this surrogate to accurately handle highly stiff systems which have been shown to cause training failures with common surrogate methods such as Physics-Informed Neural Networks (PINNs), Long Short Term Memory (LSTM) networks, and discrete echo state networks (ESN). We show that our model captures fast transients as well as slow dynamics, while demonstrating that fixed time step machine learning techniques are unable to adequately capture the multi-rate behavior. Together this provides compelling evidence for the ability of CTESN surrogates to predict and accelerate highly stiff dynamical systems which are unable to be directly handled by previous scientific machine learning techniques. 

   more » « less
3. Machine Learning for Robust Identification of Complex Nonlinear Dynamical Systems: Applications to Earth Systems Modeling

   Yadav, Nishant ; Ravela, Sai ; Ganguly, Auroop R. ( August 2020 , ArXivorg)

   null (Ed.)

   Systems exhibiting nonlinear dynamics, including but not limited to chaos, are ubiquitous across Earth Sciences such as Meteorology, Hydrology, Climate and Ecology, as well as Biology such as neural and cardiac processes. However, System Identification remains a challenge. In climate and earth systems models, while governing equations follow from first principles and understanding of key processes has steadily improved, the largest uncertainties are often caused by parameterizations such as cloud physics, which in turn have witnessed limited improvements over the last several decades. Climate scientists have pointed to Machine Learning enhanced parameter estimation as a possible solution, with proof-of-concept methodological adaptations being examined on idealized systems. While climate science has been highlighted as a "Big Data" challenge owing to the volume and complexity of archived model-simulations and observations from remote and in-situ sensors, the parameter estimation process is often relatively a "small data" problem. A crucial question for data scientists in this context is the relevance of state-of-the-art data-driven approaches including those based on deep neural networks or kernel-based processes. Here we consider a chaotic system - two-level Lorenz-96 - used as a benchmark model in the climate science literature, adopt a methodology based on Gaussian Processes for parameter estimation and compare the gains in predictive understanding with a suite of Deep Learning and strawman Linear Regression methods. Our results show that adaptations of kernel-based Gaussian Processes can outperform other approaches under small data constraints along with uncertainty quantification; and needs to be considered as a viable approach in climate science and earth system modeling. 

   more » « less
4. Deep echo state networks with uncertainty quantification for spatio‐temporal forecasting

   https://doi.org/10.1002/env.2553  

   McDermott, Patrick L. ; Wikle, Christopher K. ( December 2018 , Environmetrics)

   Long‐lead forecasting for spatio‐temporal systems can entail complex nonlinear dynamics that are difficult to specify a priori. Current statistical methodologies for modeling these processes are often highly parameterized and, thus, challenging to implement from a computational perspective. One potential parsimonious solution to this problem is a method from the dynamical systems and engineering literature referred to as an echo state network (ESN). ESN models usereservoir computingto efficiently compute recurrent neural network forecasts. Moreover, multilevel (deep) hierarchical models have recently been shown to be successful at predicting high‐dimensional complex nonlinear processes, particularly those with multiple spatial and temporal scales of variability (such as those we often find in spatio‐temporal environmental data). Here, we introduce a deep ensemble ESN (D‐EESN) model. Despite the incorporation of a deep structure, the presented model is computationally efficient. We present two versions of this model for spatio‐temporal processes that produce forecasts and associated measures of uncertainty. The first approach utilizes a bootstrap ensemble framework, and the second is developed within a hierarchical Bayesian framework (BD‐EESN). This more general hierarchical Bayesian framework naturally accommodates non‐Gaussian data types and multiple levels of uncertainties. The methodology is first applied to a data set simulated from a novel non‐Gaussian multiscale Lorenz‐96 dynamical system simulation model and, then, to a long‐lead United States (U.S.) soil moisture forecasting application. Across both applications, the proposed methodology improves upon existing methods in terms of both forecast accuracy and quantifying uncertainty.

    

   more » « less
5. MICCO: An Enhanced Multi-GPU Scheduling Framework for Many-Body Correlation Functions

   https://doi.org/10.1109/IPDPS53621.2022.00022  

   Wang, Qihan ; Ren, Bin ; Chen, Jie ; Edwards, Robert G. ( May 2022 , 2022 IEEE International Parallel and Distributed Processing Symposium (IPDPS))

   Calculation of many-body correlation functions is one of the critical kernels utilized in many scientific computing areas, especially in Lattice Quantum Chromodynamics (Lattice QCD). It is formalized as a sum of a large number of contraction terms each of which can be represented by a graph consisting of vertices describing quarks inside a hadron node and edges designating quark propagations at specific time intervals. Due to its computation- and memory-intensive nature, real-world physics systems (e.g., multi-meson or multi-baryon systems) explored by Lattice QCD prefer to leverage multi-GPUs. Different from general graph processing, many-body correlation function calculations show two specific features: a large number of computation-/data-intensive kernels and frequently repeated appearances of original and intermediate data. The former results in expensive memory operations such as tensor movements and evictions. The latter offers data reuse opportunities to mitigate the data-intensive nature of many-body correlation function calculations. However, existing graph-based multi-GPU schedulers cannot capture these data-centric features, thus resulting in a sub-optimal performance for many-body correlation function calculations. To address this issue, this paper presents a multi-GPU scheduling framework, MICCO, to accelerate contractions for correlation functions particularly by taking the data dimension (e.g., data reuse and data eviction) into account. This work first performs a comprehensive study on the interplay of data reuse and load balance, and designs two new concepts: local reuse pattern and reuse bound to study the opportunity of achieving the optimal trade-off between them. Based on this study, MICCO proposes a heuristic scheduling algorithm and a machine-learning-based regression model to generate the optimal setting of reuse bounds. Specifically, MICCO is integrated into a real-world Lattice QCD system, Redstar, for the first time running on multiple GPUs. The evaluation demonstrates MICCO outperforms other state-of-art works, achieving up to 2.25× speedup in synthesized datasets, and 1.49× speedup in real-world correlation functions. 

   more » « less