skip to main content

Title: Statistically-informed deep learning for gravitational wave parameter estimation
Abstract We introduce deep learning models to estimate the masses of the binary components of black hole mergers, ( m 1 , m 2 ) , and three astrophysical properties of the post-merger compact remnant, namely, the final spin, a f , and the frequency and damping time of the ringdown oscillations of the fundamental ℓ = m = 2 bar mode, ( ω R , ω I ) . Our neural networks combine a modified WaveNet architecture with contrastive learning and normalizing flow. We validate these models against a Gaussian conjugate prior family whose posterior distribution is described by a closed analytical expression. Upon confirming that our models produce statistically consistent results, we used them to estimate the astrophysical parameters ( m 1 , m 2 , a f , ω R , ω I ) of five binary black holes: GW150914 , GW170104 , GW170814 , GW190521 and GW190630 . We use PyCBC Inference to directly compare traditional Bayesian methodologies for parameter estimation with our deep learning based posterior distributions. Our results show that our neural network models predict posterior distributions that encode physical correlations, and that our data-driven median results and 90% confidence intervals are similar to more » those produced with gravitational wave Bayesian analyses. This methodology requires a single V100 NVIDIA GPU to produce median values and posterior distributions within two milliseconds for each event. This neural network, and a tutorial for its use, are available at the Data and Learning Hub for Science . « less
Authors:
; ; ; ;
Award ID(s):
1934757
Publication Date:
NSF-PAR ID:
10352446
Journal Name:
Machine Learning: Science and Technology
Volume:
3
Issue:
1
Page Range or eLocation-ID:
015007
ISSN:
2632-2153
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. 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
  2. We present optical photometry and spectroscopy of the Type II supernova ASASSN-14jb, together with Very Large Telescope (VLT) Multi Unit Spectroscopic Explorer (MUSE) integral field observations of its host galaxy and a nebular-phase spectrum. This supernova, in the nearby galaxy ESO 467-G051 ( z  = 0.006), was discovered and followed-up by the all-sky automated survey for supernovae (ASAS-SN). We obtained well-sampled las cumbres network (LCOGTN) B V g r i and Swift w 2 m 1 w 1 u b v optical, near-UV/optical light curves, and several optical spectra in the early photospheric phases. The transient ASASSN-14jb exploded ∼2 kpc above the star-forming disk of ESO 467-G051, an edge-on disk galaxy. The large projected distance from the disk of the supernova position and the non-detection of any H II region in a 1.4 kpc radius in projection are in conflict with the standard environment of core-collapse supernova progenitors and suggests the possible scenario that the progenitor received a kick in a binary interaction. We present analysis of the optical light curves and spectra, from which we derived a distance of 25 ± 2 Mpc using state-of-the-art empirical methods for Type II SNe, physical properties of the SN explosion ( 56 Ni mass, explosionmore »energy, and ejected mass), and properties of the progenitor; namely the progenitor radius, mass, and metallicity. Our analysis yields a 56 Ni mass of 0.0210  ±  0.0025  M ⊙ , an explosion energy of ≈0.25 × 10 51 ergs, and an ejected mass of ≈6  M ⊙ . We also constrained the progenitor radius to be R *  = 580  ±  28  R ⊙ which seems to be consistent with the sub-Solar metallicity of 0.3  ±  0.1  Z ⊙ derived from the supernova Fe II λ 5018 line. The nebular spectrum constrains strongly the progenitor mass to be in the range 10–12 M ⊙ . From the Spitzer data archive we detect ASASSN-14jb ≈330 days past explosion and we derived a total dust mass of 10 −4   M ⊙ from the 3.6 μ m and 4.5 μ m photometry. Using the F U V , N U V , B V g r i , K s , 3.6 μ m, and 4.5 μ m total magnitudes for the host galaxy, we fit stellar population synthesis models, which give an estimate of M *  ≈ 1 × 10 9   M ⊙ , an age of 3.2 Gyr, and a SFR ≈0.07  M ⊙ yr −1 . We also discuss the low oxygen abundance of the host galaxy derived from the MUSE data, having an average of 12 + log(O/H) = 8.27 +0.16 −0.20 using the O 3 N 2 diagnostic with strong line methods. We compared it with the supernova spectra, which is also consistent with a sub-Solar metallicity progenitor. Following recent observations of extraplanar H II regions in nearby edge-on galaxies, we derived the metallicity offset from the disk, being positive, but consistent with zero at 2 σ , suggesting enrichment from disk outflows. We finally discuss the possible scenarios for the unusual environment for ASASSN-14jb and conclude that either the in-situ star formation or runaway scenario would imply a low-mass progenitor, agreeing with our estimate from the supernova nebular spectrum. Regardless of the true origin of ASASSN-14jb, we show that the detailed study of the environment roughly agree with the stronger constraints from the observation of the transient.« less
  3. Abstract

    We introduce a novel machine-learning framework for estimating the Bayesian posteriors of morphological parameters for arbitrarily large numbers of galaxies. The Galaxy Morphology Posterior Estimation Network (GaMPEN) estimates values and uncertainties for a galaxy’s bulge-to-total-light ratio (LB/LT), effective radius (Re), and flux (F). To estimate posteriors, GaMPEN uses the Monte Carlo Dropout technique and incorporates the full covariance matrix between the output parameters in its loss function. GaMPEN also uses a spatial transformer network (STN) to automatically crop input galaxy frames to an optimal size before determining their morphology. This will allow it to be applied to new data without prior knowledge of galaxy size. Training and testing GaMPEN on galaxies simulated to matchz< 0.25 galaxies in Hyper Suprime-Cam Wideg-band images, we demonstrate that GaMPEN achieves typical errors of 0.1 inLB/LT, 0.″17 (∼7%) inRe, and 6.3 × 104nJy (∼1%) inF. GaMPEN's predicted uncertainties are well calibrated and accurate (<5% deviation)—for regions of the parameter space with high residuals, GaMPEN correctly predicts correspondingly large uncertainties. We also demonstrate that we can apply categorical labels (i.e., classifications such ashighly bulge dominated) to predictions in regions with high residuals and verify that those labels are ≳97% accurate. To the best of ourmore »knowledge, GaMPEN is the first machine-learning framework for determining joint posterior distributions of multiple morphological parameters and is also the first application of an STN to optical imaging in astronomy.

    « less
  4. Deep neural networks (DNNs) have surpassed human-level accuracy in various learning tasks. However, unlike humans who have a natural cognitive intuition for probabilities, DNNs cannot express their uncertainty in the output decisions. This limits the deployment of DNNs in mission critical domains, such as warfighter decision-making or medical diagnosis. Bayesian inference provides a principled approach to reason about model’s uncertainty by estimating the posterior distribution of the unknown parameters. The challenge in DNNs remains the multi-layer stages of non-linearities, which make the propagation of high-dimensional distributions mathematically intractable. This paper establishes the theoretical and algorithmic foundations of uncertainty or belief propagation by developing new deep learning models named PremiUm-CNNs (Propagating Uncertainty in Convolutional Neural Networks). We introduce a tensor normal distribution as a prior over convolutional kernels and estimate the variational posterior by maximizing the evidence lower bound (ELBO). We start by deriving the first-order mean-covariance propagation framework. Later, we develop a framework based on the unscented transformation (correct at least up to the second-order) that propagates sigma points of the variational distribution through layers of a CNN. The propagated covariance of the predictive distribution captures uncertainty in the output decision. Comprehensive experiments conducted on diverse benchmark datasets demonstrate: 1)more »superior robustness against noise and adversarial attacks, 2) self-assessment through predictive uncertainty that increases quickly with increasing levels of noise or attacks, and 3) an ability to detect a targeted attack from ambient noise.« less
  5. ABSTRACT Advanced LIGO and Advanced Virgo are detecting a large number of binary stellar origin black hole (BH) mergers. A promising channel for accelerated BH merger lies in active galactic nucleus (AGN) discs of gas around supermasssive BHs. Here, we investigate the relative number of compact object (CO) mergers in AGN disc models, including BH, neutron stars (NS), and white dwarfs, via Monte Carlo simulations. We find the number of all merger types in the bulk disc grows ∝ t1/3 which is driven by the Hill sphere of the more massive merger component. Median mass ratios of NS–BH mergers in AGN discs are $\tilde{q}=0.07\pm 0.06(0.14\pm 0.07)$ for mass functions (MF) M−1(− 2). If a fraction fAGN of the observed rate of BH–BH mergers (RBH–BH) come from AGN, the rate of NS–BH (NS–NS) mergers in the AGN channel is ${R}_{\mathrm{ BH}\!-\!\mathrm{ NS}} \sim f_{\mathrm{ AGN}}[10,300]\, \rm {Gpc}^{-3}\, \rm {yr}^{-1},({\mathit{ R}}_{NS\!-\!NS} \le \mathit{ f}_{AGN}400\, \rm {Gpc}^{-3}\, \rm {yr}^{-1}$). Given the ratio of NS–NS/BH–BH LIGO search volumes, from preliminary O3 results the AGN channel is not the dominant contribution to observed NS–NS mergers. The number of lower mass gap events expected is a strong function of the nuclear MF and mass segregation efficiency. CO merger ratiosmore »derived from LIGO can restrict models of MF, mass segregation, and populations embedded in AGN discs. The expected number of electromagnetic (EM) counterparts to NS–BH mergers in AGN discs at z < 1 is $\sim [30,900]\, {\rm {yr}}^{-1}(f_{\mathrm{ AGN}}/0.1)$. EM searches for flaring events in large AGN surveys will complement LIGO constraints on AGN models and the embedded populations that must live in them.« less