More Like this

1. Convex Q Learning in a Stochastic Environment

   Lu, Fan and ( December 2023 , Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Decision Control)

   The paper introduces the first formulation of convex Q-learning for Markov decision processes with function approximation. The algorithms and theory rest on a relaxation of a dual of Manne's celebrated linear programming characterization of optimal control. The main contributions firstly concern properties of the relaxation, described as a deterministic convex program: we identify conditions for a bounded solution, a significant connection between the solution to the new convex program, and the solution to standard Q-learning with linear function approximation. The second set of contributions concern algorithm design and analysis: (i) A direct model-free method for approximating the convex program for Q-learning shares properties with its ideal. In particular, a bounded solution is ensured subject to a simple property of the basis functions; (ii) The proposed algorithms are convergent and new techniques are introduced to obtain the rate of convergence in a mean-square sense; (iii) The approach can be generalized to a range of performance criteria, and it is found that variance can be reduced by considering ``relative'' dynamic programming equations; (iv) The theory is illustrated with an application to a classical inventory control problem. 

   more » « less
2. 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
3. Traffic signal control in mixed traffic environment based on advance decision and reinforcement learning

   https://doi.org/10.1093/tse/tdac027  

   Du, Yu ; ShangGuan, Wei ; Chai, Linguo ( November 2022 , Transportation Safety and Environment)

   Reinforcement learning-based traffic signal control systems (RLTSC) can enhance dynamic adaptability, save vehicle travelling time and promote intersection capacity. However, the existing RLTSC methods do not consider the driver's response time requirement, so the systems often face efficiency limitations and implementation difficulties. We propose the advance decision-making reinforcement learning traffic signal control (AD-RLTSC) algorithm to improve traffic efficiency while ensuring safety in mixed traffic environment. First, the relationship between the intersection perception range and the signal control period is established and the trust region state (TRS) is proposed. Then, the scalable state matrix is dynamically adjusted to decide the future signal light status. The decision will be displayed to the human-driven vehicles (HDVs) through the bi-countdown timer mechanism and sent to the nearby connected automated vehicles (CAVs) using the wireless network rather than be executed immediately. HDVs and CAVs optimize the driving speed based on the remaining green (or red) time. Besides, the Double Dueling Deep Q-learning Network algorithm is used for reinforcement learning training; a standardized reward is proposed to enhance the performance of intersection control and prioritized experience replay is adopted to improve sample utilization. The experimental results on vehicle micro-behaviour and traffic macro-efficiency showed that the proposed AD-RLTSC algorithm can simultaneously improve both traffic efficiency and traffic flow stability.

    

   more » « less
4. Sharper Model-free Reinforcement Learning for Average-reward Markov Decision Processes

   Zhang, Zihan ; Xie, Qiaomin ( July 2023 , Conference on Learning Theory)

   We study model-free reinforcement learning (RL) algorithms for infinite-horizon average-reward Markov decision process (MDP), which is more appropriate for applications that involve continuing operations not divided into episodes. In contrast to episodic/discounted MDPs, theoretical understanding of model-free RL algorithms is relatively inadequate for the average-reward setting. In this paper, we consider both the online setting and the setting with access to a simulator. We develop computationally efficient model-free algorithms that achieve sharper guarantees on regret/sample complexity compared with existing results. In the online setting, we design an algorithm, UCB-AVG, based on an optimistic variant of variance-reduced Q-learning. We show that UCB-AVG achieves a regret bound $\widetilde{O}(S^5A^2sp(h^*)\sqrt{T})$ after $T$ steps, where $S\times A$ is the size of state-action space, and $sp(h^*)$ the span of the optimal bias function. Our result provides the first computationally efficient model-free algorithm that achieves the optimal dependence in $T$ (up to log factors) for weakly communicating MDPs, which is necessary for low regret. In contrast, prior results either are suboptimal in $T$ or require strong assumptions of ergodicity or uniformly mixing of MDPs. In the simulator setting, we adapt the idea of UCB-AVG to develop a model-free algorithm that finds an $\epsilon$-optimal policy with sample complexity $\widetilde{O}(SAsp^2(h^*)\epsilon^{-2} + S^2Asp(h^*)\epsilon^{-1}).$ This sample complexity is near-optimal for weakly communicating MDPs, in view of the minimax lower bound $\Omega(SAsp(^*)\epsilon^{-2})$. Existing work mainly focuses on ergodic MDPs and the results typically depend on $t_{mix},$ the worst-case mixing time induced by a policy. We remark that the diameter $D$ and mixing time $t_{mix}$ are both lower bounded by $sp(h^*)$, and $t_{mix}$ can be arbitrarily large for certain MDPs. On the technical side, our approach integrates two key ideas: learning an $\gamma$-discounted MDP as an approximation, and leveraging reference-advantage decomposition for variance in optimistic Q-learning. As recognized in prior work, a naive approximation by discounted MDPs results in suboptimal guarantees. A distinguishing feature of our method is maintaining estimates of value-difference between state pairs to provide a sharper bound on the variance of reference advantage. We also crucially use a careful choice of the discounted factor $\gamma$ to balance approximation error due to discounting and the statistical learning error, and we are able to maintain a good-quality reference value function with $O(SA)$ space complexity. 

   more » « less
5. Reconciling λ-Returns with Experience Replay

   Daley, Brett C ; Amato, Christopher ( December 2019 , Advances in neural information processing systems)

   Modern deep reinforcement learning methods have departed from the incremental learning required for eligibility traces, rendering the implementation of the λ-return difficult in this context. In particular, off-policy methods that utilize experience replay remain problematic because their random sampling of minibatches is not conducive to the efficient calculation of λ-returns. Yet replay-based methods are often the most sample efficient, and incorporating λ-returns into them is a viable way to achieve new state-of-the-art performance. Towards this, we propose the first method to enable practical use of λ-returns in arbitrary replay-based methods without relying on other forms of decorrelation such as asynchronous gradient updates. By promoting short sequences of past transitions into a small cache within the replay memory, adjacent λ-returns can be efficiently precomputed by sharing Q-values. Computation is not wasted on experiences that are never sampled, and stored λ-returns behave as stable temporal-difference (TD) targets that replace the target network. Additionally, our method grants the unique ability to observe TD errors prior to sampling; for the first time, transitions can be prioritized by their true significance rather than by a proxy to it. Furthermore, we propose the novel use of the TD error to dynamically select λ-values that facilitate faster learning. We show that these innovations can enhance the performance of DQN when playing Atari 2600 games, even under partial observability. While our work specifically focuses on λ-returns, these ideas are applicable to any multi-step return estimator. 

   more » « less