skip to main content
Explore Scholarly Publications and Datasets in the NSF-PAR

  • NSF Public Access
  • Search Results
  • Accepted Manuscript: Component-based machine learning paradigm for discovering rate-dependent and pressure-sensitive level-set plasticity models
Title: Component-based machine learning paradigm for discovering rate-dependent and pressure-sensitive level-set plasticity models
Conventionally, neural network constitutive laws for path-dependent elasto-plastic solids are trained via supervised learning performed on recurrent neural network, with the time history of strain as input and the stress as input. However, training neural network to replicate path-dependent constitutive responses require significant more amount of data due to the path dependence. This demand on diverse and abundance of accurate data, as well as the lack of interpretability to guide the data generation process, could become major roadblocks for engineering applications. In this work, we attempt to simplify these training processes and improve the interpretability of the trained models by breaking down the training of material models into multiple supervised machine learning programs for elasticity, initial yielding and hardening laws that can be conducted sequentially. To predict pressure-sensitivity and rate dependence of the plastic responses, we reformulate the Hamliton-Jacobi equation such that the yield function is parametrized in the product space spanned by the principle stress, the accumulated plastic strain and time. To test the versatility of the neural network meta-modeling framework, we conduct multiple numerical experiments where neural networks are trained and validated against (1) data generated from known benchmark models, (2) data obtained from physical experiments and (3) more » data inferred from homogenizing sub-scale direct numerical simulations of microstructures. The neural network model is also incorporated into an offline FFT-FEM model to improve the efficiency of the multiscale calculations. « less
Authors:
;
Award ID(s):
1846875 1940203
Publication Date:
NSF-PAR ID:
10302050
Journal Name:
Journal of Applied Mechanics
Page Range or eLocation-ID:
1 to 13
ISSN:
0021-8936
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. ; ; ; ; ; ( , Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences)
    Plasticity theory aims at describing the yield loci and work hardening of a material under general deformation states. Most of its complexity arises from the nontrivial dependence of the yield loci on the complete strain history of a material and its microstructure. This motivated 3 ingenious simplifications that underpinned a century of developments in this field: 1) yield criteria describing yield loci location; 2) associative or nonassociative flow rules defining the direction of plastic flow; and 3) effective stress–strain laws consistent with the plastic work equivalence principle. However, 2 key complications arise from these simplifications. First, finding equations that describe these 3 assumptions for materials with complex microstructures is not trivial. Second, yield surface evolution needs to be traced iteratively, i.e., through a return mapping algorithm. Here, we show that these assumptions are not needed in the context of sequence learning when using recurrent neural networks, diverting the above-mentioned complications. This work offers an alternative to currently established plasticity formulations by providing the foundations for finding history- and microstructure-dependent constitutive models through deep learning.
  2. ; ( , Communications of the American Mathematical Society)
    The development of data-informed predictive models for dynamical systems is of widespread interest in many disciplines. We present a unifying framework for blending mechanistic and machine-learning approaches to identify dynamical systems from noisily and partially observed data. We compare pure data-driven learning with hybrid models which incorporate imperfect domain knowledge, referring to the discrepancy between an assumed truth model and the imperfect mechanistic model as model error. Our formulation is agnostic to the chosen machine learning model, is presented in both continuous- and discrete-time settings, and is compatible both with model errors that exhibit substantial memory and errors that are memoryless. First, we study memoryless linear (w.r.t. parametric-dependence) model error from a learning theory perspective, defining excess risk and generalization error. For ergodic continuous-time systems, we prove that both excess risk and generalization error are bounded above by terms that diminish with the square-root of T T , the time-interval over which training data is specified. Secondly, we study scenarios that benefit from modeling with memory, proving universal approximation theorems for two classes of continuous-time recurrent neural networks (RNNs): both can learn memory-dependent model error, assuming that it is governed by a finite-dimensional hidden variable and that, together, the observedmore »and hidden variables form a continuous-time Markovian system. In addition, we connect one class of RNNs to reservoir computing, thereby relating learning of memory-dependent error to recent work on supervised learning between Banach spaces using random features. Numerical results are presented (Lorenz ’63, Lorenz ’96 Multiscale systems) to compare purely data-driven and hybrid approaches, finding hybrid methods less datahungry and more parametrically efficient. We also find that, while a continuous-time framing allows for robustness to irregular sampling and desirable domain- interpretability, a discrete-time framing can provide similar or better predictive performance, especially when data are undersampled and the vector field defining the true dynamics cannot be identified. Finally, we demonstrate numerically how data assimilation can be leveraged to learn hidden dynamics from noisy, partially-observed data, and illustrate challenges in representing memory by this approach, and in the training of such models.« less
  3. ; ; ; ; ; ( , 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 EEGmore »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.« less
  4. ; ; ; ; ( , Geophysical Journal International)
    SUMMARY

    Low-temperature plastic rheology of calcite plays a significant role in the dynamics of Earth's crust. However, it is technically challenging to study plastic rheology at low temperatures because of the high confining pressures required to inhibit fracturing. Micromechanical tests, such as nanoindentation and micropillar compression, can provide insight into plastic rheology under these conditions because, due to the small scale, plastic deformation can be achieved at low temperatures without the need for secondary confinement. In this study, nanoindentation and micropillar compression experiments were performed on oriented grains within a polycrystalline sample of Carrara marble at temperatures ranging from 23 to 175 °C, using a nanoindenter. Indentation hardness is acquired directly from nanoindentation experiments. These data are then used to calculate yield stress as a function of temperature using numerical approaches that model the stress state under the indenter. Indentation data are complemented by uniaxial micropillar compression experiments. Cylindrical micropillars ∼1 and ∼3 μm in diameter were fabricated using a focused ion beam-based micromachining technique. Yield stress in micropillar experiments is determined directly from the applied load and micropillar dimensions. Mechanical data are fit to constitutive flow laws for low-temperature plasticity and compared to extrapolations of similar flow laws frommore »high-temperature experiments. This study also considered the effects of crystallographic orientation on yield stress in calcite. Although there is a clear orientation dependence to plastic yielding, this effect is relatively small in comparison to the influence of temperature.

    « less
  5. ; ; ; ; ( , Journal of Optical Communications and Networking)

    Optical transmission systems with high spectral efficiency require accurate quality of transmission estimation for optical channel provisioning. However, the wavelength-dependent gain effects of erbium-doped fiber amplifiers (EDFAs) complicate precise optical channel power prediction and low-margin operation. In this work, we examine supervised machine learning methods using multiple artificial neural networks (ANNs) to build models for gain spectra prediction of optical transmission line EDFAs under different operating conditions. Channel-loading configurations and channel input power spectra are used as an a posteriori knowledge data feature for model training. In a hybrid learning approach, estimated gain spectra calculated by an analytical model are added as an a priori input data feature to further improve the EDFA ANN model performance in terms of prediction accuracy, training time, and quantity of training data. Using these methods, the root mean square error and maximum absolute error of the predicted channel output power can be as low as 0.144 dB and 1.6 dB, respectively.

  • Citation Formats
  • MLA
  • APA
  • Chicago
  • BibTeX
  • Save / Share this Record
  • Send to Email