More Like this

1. Data-constrained Solar Modeling with GX Simulator

   https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4365/acd343  

   Nita, Gelu M. ; Fleishman, Gregory D. ; Kuznetsov, Alexey A. ; Anfinogentov, Sergey A. ; Stupishin, Alexey G. ; Kontar, Eduard P. ; Schonfeld, Samuel J. ; Klimchuk, James A. ; Gary, Dale E. ( June 2023 , The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series)

   To facilitate the study of solar flares and active regions, we have created a modeling framework, the freely distributed GX Simulator IDL package, that combines 3D magnetic and plasma structures with thermal and nonthermal models of the chromosphere, transition region, and corona. Its object-based modular architecture, which runs on Windows, Mac, and Unix/Linux platforms, offers the ability to either import 3D density and temperature distribution models, or to assign numerically defined coronal or chromospheric temperatures and densities, or their distributions, to each individual voxel. GX Simulator can apply parametric heating models involving average properties of the magnetic field lines crossing a given voxel, as well as compute and investigate the spatial and spectral properties of radio, (sub)millimeter, EUV, and X-ray emissions calculated from the model, and quantitatively compare them with observations. The package includes a fully automatic model production pipeline that, based on minimal users input, downloads the required SDO/HMI vector magnetic field data, performs potential or nonlinear force-free field extrapolations, populates the magnetic field skeleton with parameterized heated plasma coronal models that assume either steady-state or impulsive plasma heating, and generates non-LTE density and temperature distribution models of the chromosphere that are constrained by photospheric measurements. The standardized models produced by this pipeline may be further customized through specialized IDL scripts, or a set of interactive tools provided by the graphical user interface. Here, we describe the GX Simulator framework and its applications.

    

   more » « less
2. High-throughput multimodal wide-field Fourier-transform Raman microscope

   https://doi.org/10.1364/OPTICA.488860  

   Ardini, B. ; Bassi, A. ; Candeo, A. ; Genco, A. ; Trovatello, C. ; Liu, F. ; Zhu, X. ; Valentini, G. ; Cerullo, G. ; Vanna, R. ; et al ( May 2023 , Optica)

   Raman microscopy is a powerful analytical technique for materials and life sciences that enables mapping the spatial distribution of the chemical composition of a sample. State-of-the-art Raman microscopes, based on point-scanning frequency-domain detection, have long (∼1s) pixel dwell times, making it challenging to acquire images of a significant area (e.g., 100×100µm). Here we present a compact wide-field Raman microscope based on a time-domain Fourier-transform approach, which enables parallel acquisition of the Raman spectra on all pixels of a 2D detector. A common-path birefringent interferometer with exceptional delay stability and reproducibility can rapidly acquire Raman maps (∼30min for a 250000pixel image) with high spatial (<1µm) and spectral (∼23cm⁻¹) resolutions. Time-domain detection allows us to disentangle fluorescence and Raman signals, which can both be measured separately. We validate the system by Raman imaging plastic microbeads and demonstrate its multimodal operation by capturing fluorescence and Raman maps of a multilayer-WSe₂sample, providing complementary information on the strain and number of layers of the material.

    

   more » « less
3. Can deep learning assist automatic identification of layered pigments from XRF data?

   https://doi.org/10.1039/D2JA00246A  

   Xu, Bingjie Jenny ; Wu, Yunan ; Hao, Pengxiao ; Vermeulen, Marc ; McGeachy, Alicia ; Smith, Kate ; Eremin, Katherine ; Rayner, Georgina ; Verri, Giovanni ; Willomitzer, Florian ; et al ( November 2022 , Journal of Analytical Atomic Spectrometry)

   X-ray fluorescence spectroscopy (XRF) plays an important role for elemental analysis in a wide range of scientific fields, especially in cultural heritage. XRF imaging, which uses a raster scan to acquire spectra pixel-wise across artworks, provides the opportunity for spatial analysis of pigment distributions based on their elemental composition. However, conventional XRF-based pigment identification relies on time-consuming elemental mapping facilitated by the interpretation of measured spectra by experts. To reduce the reliance on manual work, recent studies have applied machine learning techniques to cluster similar XRF spectra in data analysis and to identify the most likely pigments. Nevertheless, it is still challenging to implement automatic pigment identification strategies to directly tackle the complex structure of real paintings, e.g. pigment mixtures and layered pigments. In addition, pigment identification based on XRF on a pixel-by-pixel basis remains an obstacle due to the high noise level. Therefore, we developed a deep-learning based pigment identification framework to fully automate the process. In particular, this method offers high sensitivity to the underlying pigments and to the pigments present in low concentrations, therefore enabling robust mapping of pigments based on single-pixel XRF spectra. As case studies, we applied our framework to lab-prepared mock-up paintings and two 19th-century paintings: Paul Gauguin's Poèmes Barbares (1896) that contains layered pigments with an underlying painting, and Paul Cezanne's The Bathers (1899–1904). The pigment identification results demonstrated that our model achieved comparable results to the analysis by elemental mapping, suggesting the generalizability and stability of our model. 

   more » « less
4. Automatic Deep Inference of Procedural Cities from Global-scale Spatial Data

   https://doi.org/10.1145/3423422  

   Zhang, Xiaowei ; Shehata, Aly ; Benes, Bedrich ; Aliaga, Daniel ( February 2021 , ACM Transactions on Spatial Algorithms and Systems)

   null (Ed.)

   Recent advances in big spatial data acquisition and deep learning allow novel algorithms that were not possible several years ago. We introduce a novel inverse procedural modeling algorithm for urban areas that addresses the problem of spatial data quality and uncertainty. Our method is fully automatic and produces a 3D approximation of an urban area given satellite imagery and global-scale data, including road network, population, and elevation data. By analyzing the values and the distribution of urban data, e.g., parcels, buildings, population, and elevation, we construct a procedural approximation of a city at a large-scale. Our approach has three main components: (1) procedural model generation to create parcel and building geometries, (2) parcel area estimation that trains neural networks to provide initial parcel sizes for a segmented satellite image of a city block, and (3) an optional optimization that can use partial knowledge of overall average building footprint area and building counts to improve results. We demonstrate and evaluate our approach on cities around the globe with widely different structures and automatically yield procedural models with up to 91,000 buildings, and spanning up to 150 km 2 . We obtain both a spatial arrangement of parcels and buildings similar to ground truth and a distribution of building sizes similar to ground truth, hence yielding a statistically similar synthetic urban space. We produce procedural models at multiple scales, and with less than 1% error in parcel and building areas in the best case as compared to ground truth and 5.8% error on average for tested cities. 

   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