More Like this

1. ∇-Prox: Differentiable Proximal Algorithm Modeling for Large-Scale Optimization

   https://doi.org/10.1145/3592144  

   Lai, Zeqiang ; Wei, Kaixuan ; Fu, Ying ; Härtel, Philipp ; Heide, Felix ( August 2023 , ACM Transactions on Graphics)

   Tasks across diverse application domains can be posed as large-scale optimization problems, these include graphics, vision, machine learning, imaging, health, scheduling, planning, and energy system forecasting. Independently of the application domain, proximal algorithms have emerged as a formal optimization method that successfully solves a wide array of existing problems, often exploiting problem-specific structures in the optimization. Although model-based formal optimization provides a principled approach to problem modeling with convergence guarantees, at first glance, this seems to be at odds with black-box deep learning methods. A recent line of work shows that, when combined with learning-based ingredients, model-based optimization methods are effective, interpretable, and allow for generalization to a wide spectrum of applications with little or no extra training data. However, experimenting with such hybrid approaches for different tasks by hand requires domain expertise in both proximal optimization and deep learning, which is often error-prone and time-consuming. Moreover, naively unrolling these iterative methods produces lengthy compute graphs, which when differentiated via autograd techniques results in exploding memory consumption, making batch-based training challenging. In this work, we introduce ∇-Prox, a domain-specific modeling language and compiler for large-scale optimization problems using differentiable proximal algorithms. ∇-Prox allows users to specify optimization objective functions of unknowns concisely at a high level, and intelligently compiles the problem into compute and memory-efficient differentiable solvers. One of the core features of ∇-Prox is its full differentiability, which supports hybrid model- and learning-based solvers integrating proximal optimization with neural network pipelines. Example applications of this methodology include learning-based priors and/or sample-dependent inner-loop optimization schedulers, learned with deep equilibrium learning or deep reinforcement learning. With a few lines of code, we show ∇-Prox can generate performant solvers for a range of image optimization problems, including end-to-end computational optics, image deraining, and compressive magnetic resonance imaging. We also demonstrate ∇-Prox can be used in a completely orthogonal application domain of energy system planning, an essential task in the energy crisis and the clean energy transition, where it outperforms state-of-the-art CVXPY and commercial Gurobi solvers. 

   more » « less
2. A Deep Learning Framework for Sickle Cell Disease Microfluidic Biomarker Assays

   https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2020-141693  

   Praljak, Niksa ; Shipley, Brandon ; Gonzales, Ayesha ; Goreke, Utku ; Iram, Shamreen ; Singh, Gundeep ; Hill, Ailis ; Gurkan, Umut A. ; Hinczewski, Michael ( November 2020 , Blood)

   null (Ed.)

   Introduction: Vaso-occlusive crises (VOCs) are a leading cause of morbidity and early mortality in individuals with sickle cell disease (SCD). These crises are triggered by sickle red blood cell (sRBC) aggregation in blood vessels and are influenced by factors such as enhanced sRBC and white blood cell (WBC) adhesion to inflamed endothelium. Advances in microfluidic biomarker assays (i.e., SCD Biochip systems) have led to clinical studies of blood cell adhesion onto endothelial proteins, including, fibronectin, laminin, P-selectin, ICAM-1, functionalized in microchannels. These microfluidic assays allow mimicking the physiological aspects of human microvasculature and help characterize biomechanical properties of adhered sRBCs under flow. However, analysis of the microfluidic biomarker assay data has so far relied on manual cell counting and exhaustive visual morphological characterization of cells by trained personnel. Integrating deep learning algorithms with microscopic imaging of adhesion protein functionalized microfluidic channels can accelerate and standardize accurate classification of blood cells in microfluidic biomarker assays. Here we present a deep learning approach into a general-purpose analytical tool covering a wide range of conditions: channels functionalized with different proteins (laminin or P-selectin), with varying degrees of adhesion by both sRBCs and WBCs, and in both normoxic and hypoxic environments. Methods: Our neural networks were trained on a repository of manually labeled SCD Biochip microfluidic biomarker assay whole channel images. Each channel contained adhered cells pertaining to clinical whole blood under constant shear stress of 0.1 Pa, mimicking physiological levels in post-capillary venules. The machine learning (ML) framework consists of two phases: Phase I segments pixels belonging to blood cells adhered to the microfluidic channel surface, while Phase II associates pixel clusters with specific cell types (sRBCs or WBCs). Phase I is implemented through an ensemble of seven generative fully convolutional neural networks, and Phase II is an ensemble of five neural networks based on a Resnet50 backbone. Each pixel cluster is given a probability of belonging to one of three classes: adhered sRBC, adhered WBC, or non-adhered / other. Results and Discussion: We applied our trained ML framework to 107 novel whole channel images not used during training and compared the results against counts from human experts. As seen in Fig. 1A, there was excellent agreement in counts across all protein and cell types investigated: sRBCs adhered to laminin, sRBCs adhered to P-selectin, and WBCs adhered to P-selectin. Not only was the approach able to handle surfaces functionalized with different proteins, but it also performed well for high cell density images (up to 5000 cells per image) in both normoxic and hypoxic conditions (Fig. 1B). The average uncertainty for the ML counts, obtained from accuracy metrics on the test dataset, was 3%. This uncertainty is a significant improvement on the 20% average uncertainty of the human counts, estimated from the variance in repeated manual analyses of the images. Moreover, manual classification of each image may take up to 2 hours, versus about 6 minutes per image for the ML analysis. Thus, ML provides greater consistency in the classification at a fraction of the processing time. To assess which features the network used to distinguish adhered cells, we generated class activation maps (Fig. 1C-E). These heat maps indicate the regions of focus for the algorithm in making each classification decision. Intriguingly, the highlighted features were similar to those used by human experts: the dimple in partially sickled RBCs, the sharp endpoints for highly sickled RBCs, and the uniform curvature of the WBCs. Overall the robust performance of the ML approach in our study sets the stage for generalizing it to other endothelial proteins and experimental conditions, a first step toward a universal microfluidic ML framework targeting blood disorders. Such a framework would not only be able to integrate advanced biophysical characterization into fast, point-of-care diagnostic devices, but also provide a standardized and reliable way of monitoring patients undergoing targeted therapies and curative interventions, including, stem cell and gene-based therapies for SCD. Disclosures Gurkan: Dx Now Inc.: Patents & Royalties; Xatek Inc.: Patents & Royalties; BioChip Labs: Patents & Royalties; Hemex Health, Inc.: Consultancy, Current Employment, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding. 

   more » « less
3. SPOTTER: Extending Symbolic Planning Operators through Targeted Reinforcement Learning

   https://doi.org/https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/3463952.3464062  

   Sarathy, Vasanth ; Kasenberg, Daniel ; Goel, Shivam ; Sinapov, Jivko ; Scheutz, Matthias ( January 2021 , AAMAS Conference proceedings)

   Symbolic planning models allow decision-making agents to sequence actions in arbitrary ways to achieve a variety of goals in dynamic domains. However, they are typically handcrafted and tend to require precise formulations that are not robust to human error. Reinforcement learning (RL) approaches do not require such models, and instead learn domain dynamics by exploring the environment and collecting rewards. However, RL approaches tend to require millions of episodes of experience and often learn policies that are not easily transferable to other tasks. In this paper, we address one aspect of the open problem of integrating these approaches: how can decision-making agents resolve discrepancies in their symbolic planning models while attempting to accomplish goals? We propose an integrated framework named SPOTTER that uses RL to augment and support ("spot") a planning agent by discovering new operators needed by the agent to accomplish goals that are initially unreachable for the agent. SPOTTER outperforms pure-RL approaches while also discovering transferable symbolic knowledge and does not require supervision, successful plan traces or any a priori knowledge about the missing planning operator. 

   more » « less
4. 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
5. NeuroVectorizer: end-to-end vectorization with deep reinforcement learning

   https://doi.org/10.1145/3368826.3377928  

   Haj-Ali, Ameer ; Ahmed, Nesreen K. ; Willke, Ted ; Shao, Yakun Sophia ; Asanovic, Krste ; Stoica, Ion ( February 2020 , CGO 2020: Proceedings of the 18th ACM/IEEE International Symposium on Code Generation and Optimization)

   null (Ed.)

   One of the key challenges arising when compilers vectorize loops for today’s SIMD-compatible architectures is to decide if vectorization or interleaving is beneficial. Then, the compiler has to determine the number of instructions to pack together and the interleaving level (stride). Compilers are designed today to use fixed-cost models that are based on heuristics to make vectorization decisions on loops. However, these models are unable to capture the data dependency, the computation graph, or the organization of instructions. Alternatively, software engineers often hand-write the vectorization factors of every loop. This, however, places a huge burden on them, since it requires prior experience and significantly increases the development time. In this work, we explore a novel approach for handling loop vectorization and propose an end-to-end solution using deep reinforcement learning (RL). We conjecture that deep RL can capture different instructions, dependencies, and data structures to enable learning a sophisticated model that can better predict the actual performance cost and determine the optimal vectorization factors. We develop an end-to-end framework, from code to vectorization, that integrates deep RL in the LLVM compiler. Our proposed framework takes benchmark codes as input and extracts the loop codes. These loop codes are then fed to a loop embedding generator that learns an embedding for these loops. Finally, the learned embeddings are used as input to a Deep RL agent, which dynamically determines the vectorization factors for all the loops. We further extend our framework to support random search, decision trees, supervised neural networks, and nearest-neighbor search. We evaluate our approaches against the currently used LLVM vectorizer and loop polyhedral optimization techniques. Our experiments show 1.29×−4.73× performance speedup compared to baseline and only 3% worse than the brute-force search on a wide range of benchmarks. 

   more » « less