More Like this

1. Handling Missing Data with Graph Representation Learning

   You, Jiaxuan ; Ma, Xiaobai ; Ding, Daisy Yi ; Kochenderfer, Mykel ; Leskovec, Jure. ( January 2020 , Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS)

   Machine learning with missing data has been approached in two different ways, including feature imputation where missing feature values are estimated based on observed values and label prediction where downstream labels are learned directly from incomplete data. However, existing imputation models tend to have strong prior assumptions and cannot learn from downstream tasks, while models targeting label prediction often involve heuristics and can encounter scalability issues. Here we propose GRAPE, a graph-based framework for feature imputation as well as label prediction. GRAPE tackles the missing data problem using a graph representation, where the observations and features are viewed as two types of nodes in a bipartite graph, and the observed feature values as edges. Under the GRAPE framework, the feature imputation is formulated as an edge-level prediction task and the label prediction as a node-level prediction task. These tasks are then solved with Graph Neural Networks. Experimental results on nine benchmark datasets show that GRAPE yields 20% lower mean absolute error for imputation tasks and 10% lower for label prediction tasks, compared with existing state-of-the-art methods. 

   more » « less
2. Breaking the Limit of Graph Neural Networks by Improving the Assortativity of Graphs with Local Mixing Patterns

   https://doi.org/10.1145/3447548.3467373  

   Suresh, Susheel ; Budde, Vinith ; Neville, Jennifer ; Li, Pan ; Ma, Jianzhu ( August 2021 , Proceedings of the 27th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining)

   Graph neural networks (GNNs) have achieved tremendous success on multiple graph-based learning tasks by fusing network structure and node features. Modern GNN models are built upon iterative aggregation of neighbor's/proximity features by message passing. Its prediction performance has been shown to be strongly bounded by assortative mixing in the graph, a key property wherein nodes with similar attributes mix/connect with each other. We observe that real world networks exhibit heterogeneous or diverse mixing patterns and the conventional global measurement of assortativity, such as global assortativity coefficient, may not be a representative statistic in quantifying this mixing. We adopt a generalized concept, node-level assortativity, one that is based at the node level to better represent the diverse patterns and accurately quantify the learnability of GNNs. We find that the prediction performance of a wide range of GNN models is highly correlated with the node level assortativity. To break this limit, in this work, we focus on transforming the input graph into a computation graph which contains both proximity and structural information as distinct type of edges. The resulted multi-relational graph has an enhanced level of assortativity and, more importantly, preserves rich information from the original graph. We then propose to run GNNs on this computation graph and show that adaptively choosing between structure and proximity leads to improved performance under diverse mixing. Empirically, we show the benefits of adopting our transformation framework for semi-supervised node classification task on a variety of real world graph learning benchmarks. 

   more » « less
3. Meta Propagation Networks for Graph Few-shot Semi-supervised Learning

   https://doi.org/10.1609/aaai.v36i6.20605  

   Ding, Kaize ; Wang, Jianling ; Caverlee, James ; Liu, Huan ( June 2022 , Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence)

   Inspired by the extensive success of deep learning, graph neural networks (GNNs) have been proposed to learn expressive node representations and demonstrated promising performance in various graph learning tasks. However, existing endeavors predominately focus on the conventional semi-supervised setting where relatively abundant gold-labeled nodes are provided. While it is often impractical due to the fact that data labeling is unbearably laborious and requires intensive domain knowledge, especially when considering the heterogeneity of graph-structured data. Under the few-shot semi-supervised setting, the performance of most of the existing GNNs is inevitably undermined by the overfitting and oversmoothing issues, largely owing to the shortage of labeled data. In this paper, we propose a decoupled network architecture equipped with a novel meta-learning algorithm to solve this problem. In essence, our framework Meta-PN infers high-quality pseudo labels on unlabeled nodes via a meta-learned label propagation strategy, which effectively augments the scarce labeled data while enabling large receptive fields during training. Extensive experiments demonstrate that our approach offers easy and substantial performance gains compared to existing techniques on various benchmark datasets. The implementation and extended manuscript of this work are publicly available at https://github.com/kaize0409/Meta-PN. 

   more » « less
4. Transductive Linear Probing: A Novel Framework for Few-Shot Node Classification

   Tan, Zhen ; Wang, Song ; Ding, Kaize ; Li, Jundong ; Liu, Huan ( January 2022 , Proceedings of the First Learning on Graphs Conference)

   Few-shot node classification is tasked to provide accurate predictions for nodes from novel classes with only few representative labeled nodes. This problem has drawn tremendous attention for its projection to prevailing real-world applications, such as product categorization for newly added commodity categories on an E-commerce platform with scarce records or diagnoses for rare diseases on a patient similarity graph. To tackle such challenging label scarcity issues in the non-Euclidean graph domain, meta-learning has become a successful and predominant paradigm. More recently, inspired by the development of graph self-supervised learning, transferring pretrained node embeddings for few-shot node classification could be a promising alternative to meta-learning but remains unexposed. In this work, we empirically demonstrate the potential of an alternative framework, \textit{Transductive Linear Probing}, that transfers pretrained node embeddings, which are learned from graph contrastive learning methods. We further extend the setting of few-shot node classification from standard fully supervised to a more realistic self-supervised setting, where meta-learning methods cannot be easily deployed due to the shortage of supervision from training classes. Surprisingly, even without any ground-truth labels, transductive linear probing with self-supervised graph contrastive pretraining can outperform the state-of-the-art fully supervised meta-learning based methods under the same protocol. We hope this work can shed new light on few-shot node classification problems and foster future research on learning from scarcely labeled instances on graphs. 

   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