More Like this

1. Leveraging quantum annealing for large MIMO processing in centralized radio access networks

   https://doi.org/10.1145/3341302.3342072  

   Kim, Minsung ; Venturelli, Davide ; Jamieson, Kyle ( August 2019 , The 31st ACM Special Interest Group on Data Communication (SIGCOMM))

   User demand for increasing amounts of wireless capacity continues to outpace supply, and so to meet this demand, significant progress has been made in new MIMO wireless physical layer techniques. Higher-performance systems now remain impractical largely only because their algorithms are extremely computationally demanding. For optimal performance, an amount of computation that increases at an exponential rate both with the number of users and with the data rate of each user is often required. The base station's computational capacity is thus becoming one of the key limiting factors on wireless capacity. QuAMax is the first large MIMO cloud-based radio access network design to address this issue by leveraging quantum annealing on the problem. We have implemented QuAMax on the 2,031 qubit D-Wave 2000Q quantum annealer, the state-of-the-art in the field. Our experimental results evaluate that implementation on real and synthetic MIMO channel traces, showing that 30 US of compute time on the 2000Q can enable 48 user, 48 AP antenna BPSK communication at 20 dB SNR with a bit error rate of 10^(-6) and a 1,500 byte frame error rate of 10^(-4).
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 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
3. Machine Learning Framework for Quantum Sampling of Highly-Constrained, Continuous Optimization Problems

   B. Wilson, Z. Kudyshev ( May 2021 , ArXivorg)

   In the recent years, there is a growing interest in using quantum computers for solving combinatorial optimization problems. In this work, we developed a generic, machine learning-based framework for mapping continuous-space inverse design problems into surrogate quadratic unconstrained binary optimization (QUBO) problems by employing a binary variational autoencoder and a factorization machine. The factorization machine is trained as a low-dimensional, binary surrogate model for the continuous design space and sampled using various QUBO samplers. Using the D-Wave Advantage hybrid sampler and simulated annealing, we demonstrate that by repeated resampling and retraining of the factorization machine, our framework finds designs that exhibit figures of merit exceeding those of its training set. We showcase the framework’s performance on two inverse design problems by optimizing (i) thermal emitter topologies for thermophotovoltaic applications and (ii) diffractive meta-gratings for highly efficient beam steering. This technique can be further scaled to leverage future developments in quantum optimization to solve advanced inverse design problems for science and engineering applications.
4. Towards Guaranteeing Error Bound in DCT-based Lossy Compression

   https://doi.org/10.1109/BigData55660.2022.10020345  

   Chen, Jiaxi ; Moon, Aekyeung ; Son, Seung Woo ( December 2022 , IEEE International Conference on Big Data (Big Data))

   High-performance computing (HPC) systems that run scientific simulations of significance produce a large amount of data during runtime. Transferring or storing such big datasets causes a severe I/O bottleneck and a considerable storage burden. Applying compression techniques, particularly lossy compressors, can reduce the size of the data and mitigate such overheads. Unlike lossless compression algorithms, error-controlled lossy compressors could significantly reduce the data size while respecting the user-defined error bound. DCTZ is one of the transform-based lossy compressors with a highly efficient encoding and purpose-built error control mechanism that accomplishes high compression ratios with high data fidelity. However, since DCTZ quantizes the DCT coefficients in the frequency domain, it may only partially control the relative error bound defined by the user. In this paper, we aim to improve the compression quality of DCTZ. Specifically, we propose a preconditioning method based on level offsetting and scaling to control the magnitude of input of the DCTZ framework, thereby enforcing stricter error bounds. We evaluate the performance of our method in terms of compression ratio and rate distortion with real-world HPC datasets. Our experimental result shows that our method can achieve a higher compression ratio than other state-of-the-art lossy compressors with a tightermore »error bound while precisely guaranteeing the user-defined error bound.« less
5. Ultrafast Error-Bounded Lossy Compression for Scientific Datasets

   https://doi.org/10.1145/3502181.3531473  

   Yu, Xiaodong ; Di, Sheng ; Zhao, Kai ; Tian, Jiannan ; Tao, Dingwen ; Liang, Xin ; Cappello, Franck ( June 2022 , The 31st ACM International Symposium on High-Performance Parallel and Distributed Computing (HPDC 2022))

   Today’s scientific high-performance computing applications and advanced instruments are producing vast volumes of data across a wide range of domains, which impose a serious burden on data transfer and storage. Error-bounded lossy compression has been developed and widely used in the scientific community because it not only can significantly reduce the data volumes but also can strictly control the data distortion based on the user-specified error bound. Existing lossy compressors, however, cannot offer ultrafast compression speed, which is highly demanded by numerous applications or use cases (such as in-memory compression and online instrument data compression). In this paper we propose a novel ultrafast error-bounded lossy compressor that can obtain fairly high compression performance on both CPUs and GPUs and with reasonably high compression ratios. The key contributions are threefold. (1) We propose a generic error-bounded lossy compression framework—called SZx—that achieves ultrafast performance through its novel design comprising only lightweight operations such as bitwise and addition/subtraction operations, while still keeping a high compression ratio. (2) We implement SZx on both CPUs and GPUs and optimize the performance according to their architectures. (3) We perform a comprehensive evaluation with six real-world production-level scientific datasets on both CPUs and GPUs. Experiments show thatmore »SZx is 2∼16× faster than the second-fastest existing error-bounded lossy compressor (either SZ or ZFP) on CPUs and GPUs, with respect to both compression and decompression.« less