More Like this

1. QoE Inference and Improvement Without End-Host Control

   https://doi.org/10.1109/SEC.2018.00011  

   Nikravesh, Ashkan ; Chen, Qi Alfred ; Haseley, Scott ; Zhu, Xiao ; Challen, Geoffrey ; Mao, Z. Morley ( October 2018 , 2018 IEEE/ACM Symposium on Edge Computing (SEC))

   Network quality-of-service (QoS) does not always translate to user quality-of-experience (QoE). Consequently, knowledge of user QoE is desirable in several scenarios that have traditionally operated on QoS information. Examples include traffic management by ISPs and resource allocation by the operating system. But today these systems lack ways to measure user QoE. To help address this problem, we propose offline generation of per-app models mapping app-independent QoS metrics to app-specific QoE metrics. This enables any entity that can observe an app's network traffic-including ISPs and access points-to infer the app's QoE. We describe how to generate such models for many diverse apps with significantly different QoE metrics. We generate models for common user interactions of 60 popular apps. We then demonstrate the utility of these models by implementing a QoE-aware traffic management framework and evaluate it on a WiFi access point. Our approach successfully improves QoE metrics that reflect user-perceived performance. First, we demonstrate that prioritizing traffic for latency-sensitive apps can improve responsiveness and video frame rate, by 46% and 115%, respectively. Second, we show that a novel QoE-aware bandwidth allocation scheme for bandwidth-intensive apps can improve average video bitrate for multiple users by up to 23%. 

   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. QFlow: A Learning Approach to High QoE Video Streaming at the Wireless Edge

   https://doi.org/10.1109/TNET.2021.3106675  

   Bhattacharyya, Rajarshi ; Bura, Archana ; Rengarajan, Desik ; Rumuly, Mason ; Xia, Bainan ; Shakkottai, Srinivas ; Kalathil, Dileep ; Mok, Ricky K. ; Dhamdhere, Amogh ( January 2021 , IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking)

   null (Ed.)

   The predominant use of wireless access networks is for media streaming applications. However, current access networks treat all packets identically, and lack the agility to determine which clients are most in need of service at a given time. Software reconfigurability of networking devices has seen wide adoption, and this in turn implies that agile control policies can be now instantiated on access networks. Exploiting such reconfigurability requires the design of a system that can enable a configuration, measure the impact on the application performance (Quality of Experience), and adaptively select a new configuration. Effectively, this feedback loop is a Markov Decision Process whose parameters are unknown. The goal of this work is to develop QFlow, a platform that instantiates this feedback loop, and instantiate a variety of control policies over it. We use the popular application of video streaming over YouTube as our use case. Our context is priority queueing, with the action space being that of determining which clients should be assigned to each queue at each decision period. We first develop policies based on model-based and model-free reinforcement learning. We then design an auction-based system under which clients place bids for priority service, as well as a more structured index-based policy. Through experiments, we show how these learning-based policies on QFlow are able to select the right clients for prioritization in a high-load scenario to outperform the best known solutions with over 25% improvement in QoE, and a perfect QoE score of 5 over 85% of the time. 

   more » « less
4. Drop the packets: using coarse-grained data to detect video performance issues

   https://doi.org/10.1145/3386367.3431294  

   Mangla, Tarun ; Halepovic, Emir ; Zegura, Ellen ; Ammar, Mostafa ( January 2020 , Proceedings of ACM Conext)

   null (Ed.)

   Understanding end-user video Quality of Experience (QoE) is important for Internet Service Providers (ISPs). Existing work presents mechanisms that use network measurement data to estimate video QoE. Most of these mechanisms assume access to packet-level traces, the most-detailed data available from the network. However, collecting packet-level traces can be challenging at a network-wide scale. Therefore, we ask: "Is it feasible to estimate video QoE with lightweight, readily-available, but coarse-grained network data?" We specifically consider data in the form of Transport Layer Security (TLS) transactions that can be collected using a standard proxy and present a machine learning-based methodology to estimate QoE. Our evaluation with three popular streaming services shows that the estimation accuracy using TLS transactions is high (up to 72%) with up to 85% recall in detecting low QoE (low video quality or high re-buffering) instances. Compared to packet traces, the estimation accuracy (recall) is 7% (9%) lower but has up to 60 times lower computation overhead. 

   more » « less
5. Underwater Adaptive Video Transmissions using MIMO-based Software-Defined Acoustic Modems

   https://doi.org/10.1109/TMM.2021.3127454  

   Rahmati, Mehdi ; Qi, Zhuoran ; Pompili, Dario ( November 2021 , IEEE Transactions on Multimedia)

   Achieving reliable acoustic wireless video transmissions in the extreme and uncertain underwater environment is a challenge due to the limited bandwidth and the error-prone nature of the channel. Aiming at optimizing the received video quality and the user's experience, an adaptive solution for underwater video transmissions is proposed that is specifically designed for Multi-Input Multi-Output (MIMO -based Software-Defined Acoustic Modems (SDAMs . To keep the video distortion under an acceptable threshold and to keep the Physical-Layer Throughput (PLT high, cross-layer techniques utilizing diversity-spatial multiplexing and Unequal Error Protection (UEP are presented along with the scalable video compression at the application layer. Specifically, the scalability of the utilized SDAM with high processing capabilities is exploited in the proposed structure along with the temporal, spatial, and quality scalability of the Scalable Video Coding (SVC H.264/MPEG-4 AVC compression standard. The transmitter broadcasts one video stream and realizes multicasting at different users. Experimental results at the Sonny Werblin Recreation Center, Rutgers University-NJ, are presented. Several scenarios for unknown channels at the transmitter are experimentally considered when the hydrophones are placed in different locations in the pool to achieve the required SVC-based video Quality of Service (QoS and Quality of Experience (QoE given the channel state information and the robustness of different SVC scalability. The video quality level is determined by the best communication link while the transmission scheme is decided based on the worst communication link, which guarantees that each user is able to receive the video with appropriate quality. 

   more » « less