skip to main content


Title: Channel Redundancy and Overlap in Convolutional Neural Networks with Channel-Wise NNK Graphs
Feature spaces in the deep layers of convolutional neural networks (CNNs) are often very high-dimensional and difficult to inter-pret. However, convolutional layers consist of multiple channels that are activated by different types of inputs, which suggests that more insights may be gained by studying the channels and how they relate to each other. In this paper, we first analyze theoretically channel-wise non-negative kernel (CW-NNK) regression graphs, which allow us to quantify the overlap between channels and, indirectly, the intrinsic dimension of the data representation manifold. We find that redundancy between channels is significant and varies with the layer depth and the level of regularization during training. Additionally, we observe that there is a correlation between channel overlap in the last convolutional layer and generalization performance. Our experimental results demonstrate that these techniques can lead to a better understanding of deep representations.  more » « less
Award ID(s):
2009032
NSF-PAR ID:
10342324
Author(s) / Creator(s):
; ; ;
Date Published:
Journal Name:
ICASSP 2022 - 2022 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP)
Page Range / eLocation ID:
4328 to 4332
Format(s):
Medium: X
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. Lightweight neural networks refer to deep networks with small numbers of parameters, which can be deployed in resource-limited hardware such as embedded systems. To learn such lightweight networks effectively and efficiently, in this paper we propose a novel convolutional layer, namely Channel-Split Recurrent Convolution (CSR-Conv), where we split the output channels to generate data sequences with length T as the input to the recurrent layers with shared weights. As a consequence, we can construct lightweight convolutional networks by simply replacing (some) linear convolutional layers with CSR-Conv layers. We prove that under mild conditions the model size decreases with the rate of O( 1 ). Empirically we demonstrate the state-of-the-art T2 performance using VGG-16, ResNet-50, ResNet-56, ResNet- 110, DenseNet-40, MobileNet, and EfficientNet as backbone networks on CIFAR-10 and ImageNet. Codes can be found on https://github.com/tuaxon/CSR Conv. 
    more » « less
  2. 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
  3. Normalization layers are widely used in deep neural networks to stabilize training. In this paper, we consider the training of convolutional neural networks with gradient descent on a single training example. This optimization problem arises in recent approaches for solving inverse problems such as the deep image prior or the deep decoder. We show that for this setup, channel normalization, which centers and normalizes each channel individually, avoids vanishing gradients, whereas without normalization, gradients vanish which prevents efficient optimization. This effect prevails in deep single-channel linear convolutional networks, and we show that without channel normalization, gradient descent takes at least exponentially many steps to come close to an optimum. Contrary, with channel normalization, the gradients remain bounded, thus avoiding exploding gradients. 
    more » « less
  4. Genetic divergence along the central Baja California Peninsula, Mexico, has been hypothesized to reflect a Pliocene cross-peninsular seaway that previously isolated northern and southern populations of terrestrial plants and animals. One way to test this hypothesis is through quantitative analysis of relict channels preserved on low-relief paleo-surfaces. Recognition of tidal channels on relict landscapes offers a powerful tool for reconstructing past sea level in tectonically active arid coastal regions where crustal uplift results in relative sea-level fall and preservation of ancient channel networks. This method requires reliable criteria to distinguish fluvial versus tidal channels, which is challenging due to the overlap of standard metrics for the two channel types, and possible inheritance or overprinting of geometries. We improve the utility of existing metrics and explore the potential for identifying paleo-sea-level indicators by analyzing modern and ancient channels to identify unique patterns in planform geometry and to evaluate their applicability for classifying tidal versus fluvial origins. Preliminary measurements of geographically diverse modern systems reveal distinct, quantifiable differences between the two channel types in along-channel curvature, width, and wavelet spectra. Modern tidal channels display a pronounced and systematic down-channel increase in channel width and decrease in curvature. In contrast, modern fluvial channels do not display spatial patterns in channel width and curvature along their lengths. These patterns provide diagnostic criteria that can be paired with wavelet analysis of meander belts to classify the paleoenvironment of ancient channels based on their planform geometry. We apply this approach to evaluate the origin of channels preserved on relict landscapes in the San Ignacio trough in the central Baja California peninsula, a former low-relief embayment of the Pacific Ocean. Early results reveal the presence of ancient tidal channel networks at elevations of ~ 50-300 m above modern sea level on surfaces that are independently dated to be ca. 4-5 Ma. These findings provide evidence for post 4-Ma uplift in the mid-peninsular region and an ancient tidal environment that may have isolated northern and southern terrestrial populations. 
    more » « less
  5. Abstract

    Despite its relatively small magnitude, cross-channel circulation in estuaries can influence the along-channel momentum balance, dispersion, and transport. We investigate spatial and temporal variation in cross-channel circulation at two contrasting sites in the Hudson River estuary. The two sites differ in the relative strength and direction of Coriolis and curvature forcing. We contrast the patterns and magnitudes of flow at the two sites during varying conditions in stratification driven by tidal amplitude and river discharge. We found well-defined flows during flood tides at both sites, characterized by mainly two-layer structures when the water column was more homogeneous and structures with three or more layers when the water column was more stratified. Ebb tides had generally weaker and less definite flows, except at one site where curvature and Coriolis reinforced each other during spring tide ebbs. Cross-channel currents had similar patterns, but were oppositely directed at the two sites, demonstrating the importance of curvature even in channels with relatively gradual curves. Coriolis and curvature dominated the measured terms in the cross-channel momentum balance. Their combination was generally consistent with driving the observed patterns and directions of flow, but local acceleration and cross-channel advection made some notable contributions. A large residual in the momentum balance indicates that some combination of vertical stress divergence, baroclinic pressure gradients, and along-channel and vertical advection must play an essential role, but data limitations prevented an accurate estimation of these terms. Cross-channel advection affected the along-channel momentum balance at times, with implications for the exchange flow’s strength.

    Significance Statement

    Currents that flow across the channel in an estuary move slower than those flowing along the channel, but they can transport materials and change water properties in important ways, affecting human uses of estuaries such as shipping, aquaculture, and recreation. We wanted to better understand cross-channel currents in the Hudson River estuary. We found that larger tides produced the strongest cross-channel currents with a two-layer pattern, compared to weaker currents with three layers during smaller tides. Higher or lower river flow also affected current strength. Comparing two locations, we saw cross-channel currents moving in opposite directions because of differences in the curvature of the river channel. Our results show how channel curvature and Earth’s rotation combine to produce cross-channel currents.

     
    more » « less