More Like this

1. Learning-based Phase-aware Multi-core CPU Workload Forecasting

   https://doi.org/10.1145/3564929  

   Alcorta, Erika S. ; Gerstlauer, Andreas ( December 2022 , ACM Transactions on Design Automation of Electronic Systems)

   Predicting workload behavior during workload execution is essential for dynamic resource optimization in multi-processor systems. Recent studies have proposed advanced machine learning techniques for dynamic workload prediction. Workload prediction can be cast as a time series forecasting problem. However, traditional forecasting models struggle to predict abrupt workload changes. These changes occur because workloads are known to go through phases. Prior work has investigated machine learning-based approaches for phase detection and prediction, but such approaches have not been studied in the context of dynamic workload forecasting. In this paper, we propose phase-aware CPU workload forecasting as a novel approach that applies long-term phase prediction to improve the accuracy of short-term workload forecasting. Phase-aware forecasting requires machine learning models for phase classification, phase prediction, and phase-based forecasting that have not been explored in this combination before. Furthermore, existing prediction approaches have only been studied in single-core settings. This work explores phase-aware workload forecasting with multi-threaded workloads running on multi-core systems. We propose different multi-core settings differentiated by the number of cores they access and whether they produce specialized or global outputs per core. We study various advanced machine learning models for phase classification, phase prediction, and phase-based forecasting in isolation and different combinations for each setting. We apply our approach to forecasting of multi-threaded Parsec and SPEC workloads running on an 8-core Intel Core-i9 platform. Our results show that combining GMM clustering with LSTMs for phase prediction and phase-based forecasting yields the best phase-aware forecasting results. An approach that uses specialized models per core achieves an average error of 23% with up to 22% improvement in prediction accuracy compared to a phase-unaware setup. 

   more » « less
2. Phase-Aware CPU Workload Forecasting

   Alcorta, Erika S. ; Rama, Pranav ; Aswin, Ramachandran ; Gerstlauer, Andreas ( January 2021 , International Conference on Embedded Computer Systems: Architectures, Modeling and Simulation (SAMOS))

   null (Ed.)

   Predicting workload behavior during execution is essential for dynamic resource optimization of processor systems. Early studies used simple prediction algorithms such as a history tables. More recently, researchers have applied advanced machine learning regression techniques. Workload prediction can be cast as a time series forecasting problem. Time series forecasting is an active research area with recent advances that have not been studied in the context of workload prediction. In this paper, we first perform a comparative study of representative time series forecasting techniques to predict the dynamic workload of applications running on a CPU. We adapt state-of-the-art matrix profile and dynamic linear models (DLMs) not previously applied to workload prediction and compare them against traditional SVM and LSTM models that have been popular for handling non-stationary data. We find that all time series forecasting models struggle to predict abrupt workload changes. These changes occur because workloads go through phases, where prior work has studied workload phase detection, classification and prediction. We propose a novel approach that combines time series forecasting with phase prediction. We process each phase as a separate time series and train one forecasting model per phase. At runtime, forecasts from phase-specific models are selected and combined based on the predicted phase behavior. We apply our approach to forecasting of SPEC workloads running on a state-of-the-art Intel machine. Our results show that an LSTM-based phase-aware predictor can forecast workload CPI with less than 8% mean absolute error while reducing CPI error by more than 12% on average compared to a non-phase-aware approach. 

   more » « less
3. Artificial Intelligence Techniques for SQL Injection Attack Detection

   Irungu, John ; Graham, Steffi ; Girma, Anteneh ; Kacem, Thabet ( January 2023 , Proceedings of the 2023 8th International Conference on Intelligent Information Technology)

   In recent years, web-based platforms and business applications have been rising in popularity deeming themselves indispensable as they constitute the main backbone of business processes and in- formation sharing. However, the unprecedented increased number of cyber-attacks have been threatening their day-to-day opera- tions. In particular, the Standard Query Language Injection Attack (SQLIA) remains one of the most prevalent cyber attacks targeting web-based applications. As a consequence, the SQLIA detection techniques need to be constantly revamped and stay up-to-date in order to achieve the full potential of mitigating such threats. In this paper, we propose an artificial intelligence model based on super- vised machine learning techniques to detect SQLIA. As part of the proposed model, we introduce an input string validation technique as a primary anomaly identifier using pattern matching for SQL Query data with anomalies-injections. To evaluate our approach we injected one type of SQLIA that is tautology attacks and measured the performance of our model. We used three main classifiers in our model and our findings indicate a model prediction accuracy of 98.3605% for Support Vector Machine (SVM), 96.296% for K-Nearest Neighbors (KNN), and 97.530% for Random Forest. The approach proposed in this paper has the potential of being used to integrate an automated SQL Injection detection mechanism with Intrusion Detection Systems (IDS) and Intrusion Protection Systems (IPS). 

   more » « less
4. Ensemble Machine Learning for Alzheimer’s disease Classification from Retinal Vasculature

   Lin, Hely ; Fang, Ruogu ( October 2021 , Biomedical Engineering Society Annual Meeting)

   null (Ed.)

   Introduction: Alzheimer’s disease (AD) causes progressive irreversible cognitive decline and is the leading cause of dementia. Therefore, a timely diagnosis is imperative to maximize neurological preservation. However, current treatments are either too costly or limited in availability. In this project, we explored using retinal vasculature as a potential biomarker for early AD diagnosis. This project focuses on stage 3 of a three-stage modular machine learning pipeline which consisted of image quality selection, vessel map generation, and classification [1]. The previous model only used support vector machine (SVM) to classify AD labels which limited its accuracy to 82%. In this project, random forest and gradient boosting were added and, along with SVM, combined into an ensemble classifier, raising the classification accuracy to 89%. Materials and Methods: Subjects classified as AD were those who were diagnosed with dementia in “Dementia Outcome: Alzheimer’s disease” from the UK Biobank Electronic Health Records. Five control groups were chosen with a 5:1 ratio of control to AD patients where the control patients had the same age, gender, and eye side image as the AD patient. In total, 122 vessel images from each group (AD and control) were used. The vessel maps were then segmented from fundus images through U-net. A t-test feature selection was first done on the training folds and the selected features was fed into the classifiers with a p-value threshold of 0.01. Next, 20 repetitions of 5-fold cross validation were performed where the hyperparameters were solely tuned on the training data. An ensemble classifier consisting of SVM, gradient boosting tree, and random forests was built and the final prediction was made through majority voting and evaluated on the test set. Results and Discussion: Through ensemble classification, accuracy increased by 4-12% relative to the individual classifiers, precision by 9-15%, sensitivity by 2-9%, specificity by at least 9-16%, and F1 score by 712%. Conclusions: Overall, a relatively high classification accuracy was achieved using machine learning ensemble classification with SVM, random forest, and gradient boosting. Although the results are very promising, a limitation of this study is that the requirement of needing images of sufficient quality decreased the amount of control parameters that can be implemented. However, through retinal vasculature analysis, this project shows machine learning’s high potential to be an efficient, more cost-effective alternative to diagnosing Alzheimer’s disease. Clinical Application: Using machine learning for AD diagnosis through retinal images will make screening available for a broader population by being more accessible and cost-efficient. Mobile device based screening can also be enabled at primary screening in resource-deprived regions. It can provide a pathway for future understanding of the association between biomarkers in the eye and brain. 

   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