More Like this

1. Broadcasting in Noisy Radio Networks

   https://doi.org/10.1145/3087801.3087808  

   Censor-Hillel, Keren ; Haeupler, Bernhard ; Hershkowitz, D. Ellis ; Zuzic, Goran ( October 2017 , ACM SIGACT-SIGOPS Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing)

   The widely-studied radio network model [Chlamtac and Kutten, 1985] is a graph-based description that captures the inherent impact of collisions in wireless communication. In this model, the strong assumption is made that node v receives a message from a neighbor if and only if exactly one of its neighbors broadcasts. We relax this assumption by introducing a new noisy radio network model in which random faults occur at senders or receivers. Specifically, for a constant noise parameter p ∈ [0,1), either every sender has probability p of transmitting noise or every receiver of a single transmission in its neighborhood has probability p of receiving noise. We first study single-message broadcast algorithms in noisy radio networks and show that the Decay algorithm [Bar-Yehuda et al., 1992] remains robust in the noisy model while the diameter-linear algorithm of Gasieniec et al., 2007 does not. We give a modified version of the algorithm of Gasieniec et al., 2007 that is robust to sender and receiver faults, and extend both this modified algorithm and the Decay algorithm to robust multi-message broadcast algorithms, broadcasting Ω(1/log n log log n) and Ω(1/log n) messages per round, respectively. We next investigate the extent to which (network) codingmore »improves throughput in noisy radio networks. In particular, we study the coding cap -- the ratio of the throughput of coding to that of routing -- in noisy radio networks. We address the previously perplexing result of Alon et al. 2014 that worst case coding throughput is no better than worst case routing throughput up to constants: we show that the worst case throughput performance of coding is, in fact, superior to that of routing -- by a Θ(log(n)) gap -- provided receiver faults are introduced. However, we show that sender faults have little effect on throughput. In particular, we show that any coding or routing scheme for the noiseless setting can be transformed to be robust to sender faults with only a constant throughput overhead. These transformations imply that the results of Alon et al., 2014 carry over to noisy radio networks with sender faults as well. As a result, if sender faults are introduced then there exist topologies for which there is a Θ(log log n) gap, but the worst case throughput across all topologies is Θ(1/log n) for both coding and routing.« less
2. Improving the Quality of the TUSZ Corpus

   Rahman, Safwanur Hamid ( December 2020 , IEEE Signal Processing in Medicine and Biology Symposium (SPMB))

   Obeid, Iyad ; Selesnick, Ivan ; Picone, Joseph (Ed.)

   The Temple University Hospital Seizure Detection Corpus (TUSZ) [1] has been in distribution since April 2017. It is a subset of the TUH EEG Corpus (TUEG) [2] and the most frequently requested corpus from our 3,000+ subscribers. It was recently featured as the challenge task in the Neureka 2020 Epilepsy Challenge [3]. A summary of the development of the corpus is shown below in Table 1. The TUSZ Corpus is a fully annotated corpus, which means every seizure event that occurs within its files has been annotated. The data is selected from TUEG using a screening process that identifies files most likely to contain seizures [1]. Approximately 7% of the TUEG data contains a seizure event, so it is important we triage TUEG for high yield data. One hour of EEG data requires approximately one hour of human labor to complete annotation using the pipeline described below, so it is important from a financial standpoint that we accurately triage data. A summary of the labels being used to annotate the data is shown in Table 2. Certain standards are put into place to optimize the annotation process while not sacrificing consistency. Due to the nature of EEG recordings, some recordsmore »start off with a segment of calibration. This portion of the EEG is instantly recognizable and transitions from what resembles lead artifact to a flat line on all the channels. For the sake of seizure annotation, the calibration is ignored, and no time is wasted on it. During the identification of seizure events, a hard “3 second rule” is used to determine whether two events should be combined into a single larger event. This greatly reduces the time that it takes to annotate a file with multiple events occurring in succession. In addition to the required minimum 3 second gap between seizures, part of our standard dictates that no seizure less than 3 seconds be annotated. Although there is no universally accepted definition for how long a seizure must be, we find that it is difficult to discern with confidence between burst suppression or other morphologically similar impressions when the event is only a couple seconds long. This is due to several reasons, the most notable being the lack of evolution which is oftentimes crucial for the determination of a seizure. After the EEG files have been triaged, a team of annotators at NEDC is provided with the files to begin data annotation. An example of an annotation is shown in Figure 1. A summary of the workflow for our annotation process is shown in Figure 2. Several passes are performed over the data to ensure the annotations are accurate. Each file undergoes three passes to ensure that no seizures were missed or misidentified. The first pass of TUSZ involves identifying which files contain seizures and annotating them using our annotation tool. The time it takes to fully annotate a file can vary drastically depending on the specific characteristics of each file; however, on average a file containing multiple seizures takes 7 minutes to fully annotate. This includes the time that it takes to read the patient report as well as traverse through the entire file. Once an event has been identified, the start and stop time for the seizure is stored in our annotation tool. This is done on a channel by channel basis resulting in an accurate representation of the seizure spreading across different parts of the brain. Files that do not contain any seizures take approximately 3 minutes to complete. Even though there is no annotation being made, the file is still carefully examined to make sure that nothing was overlooked. In addition to solely scrolling through a file from start to finish, a file is often examined through different lenses. Depending on the situation, low pass filters are used, as well as increasing the amplitude of certain channels. These techniques are never used in isolation and are meant to further increase our confidence that nothing was missed. Once each file in a given set has been looked at once, the annotators start the review process. The reviewer checks a file and comments any changes that they recommend. This takes about 3 minutes per seizure containing file, which is significantly less time than the first pass. After each file has been commented on, the third pass commences. This step takes about 5 minutes per seizure file and requires the reviewer to accept or reject the changes that the second reviewer suggested. Since tangible changes are made to the annotation using the annotation tool, this step takes a bit longer than the previous one. Assuming 18% of the files contain seizures, a set of 1,000 files takes roughly 127 work hours to annotate. Before an annotator contributes to the data interpretation pipeline, they are trained for several weeks on previous datasets. A new annotator is able to be trained using data that resembles what they would see under normal circumstances. An additional benefit of using released data to train is that it serves as a means of constantly checking our work. If a trainee stumbles across an event that was not previously annotated, it is promptly added, and the data release is updated. It takes about three months to train an annotator to a point where their annotations can be trusted. Even though we carefully screen potential annotators during the hiring process, only about 25% of the annotators we hire survive more than one year doing this work. To ensure that the annotators are consistent in their annotations, the team conducts an interrater agreement evaluation periodically to ensure that there is a consensus within the team. The annotation standards are discussed in Ochal et al. [4]. An extended discussion of interrater agreement can be found in Shah et al. [5]. The most recent release of TUSZ, v1.5.2, represents our efforts to review the quality of the annotations for two upcoming challenges we hosted: an internal deep learning challenge at IBM [6] and the Neureka 2020 Epilepsy Challenge [3]. One of the biggest changes that was made to the annotations was the imposition of a stricter standard for determining the start and stop time of a seizure. Although evolution is still included in the annotations, the start times were altered to start when the spike-wave pattern becomes distinct as opposed to merely when the signal starts to shift from background. This cuts down on background that was mislabeled as a seizure. For seizure end times, all post ictal slowing that was included was removed. The recent release of v1.5.2 did not include any additional data files. Two EEG files had been added because, originally, they were corrupted in v1.5.1 but were able to be retrieved and added for the latest release. The progression from v1.5.0 to v1.5.1 and later to v1.5.2, included the re-annotation of all of the EEG files in order to develop a confident dataset regarding seizure identification. Starting with v1.4.0, we have also developed a blind evaluation set that is withheld for use in competitions. The annotation team is currently working on the next release for TUSZ, v1.6.0, which is expected to occur in August 2020. It will include new data from 2016 to mid-2019. This release will contain 2,296 files from 2016 as well as several thousand files representing the remaining data through mid-2019. In addition to files that were obtained with our standard triaging process, a part of this release consists of EEG files that do not have associated patient reports. Since actual seizure events are in short supply, we are mining a large chunk of data for which we have EEG recordings but no reports. Some of this data contains interesting seizure events collected during long-term EEG sessions or data collected from patients with a history of frequent seizures. It is being mined to increase the number of files in the corpus that have at least one seizure event. We expect v1.6.0 to be released before IEEE SPMB 2020. The TUAR Corpus is an open-source database that is currently available for use by any registered member of our consortium. To register and receive access, please follow the instructions provided at this web page: https://www.isip.piconepress.com/projects/tuh_eeg/html/downloads.shtml. The data is located here: https://www.isip.piconepress.com/projects/tuh_eeg/downloads/tuh_eeg_artifact/v2.0.0/.« less
3. Priority Evacuation from a Disk Using Mobile Robots

   https://doi.org/978-3-030-01325-7_32  

   Czyzowicz, J ; Georgiou, K ; Killick, R ; Kranakis, E ; Krizanc, D ; Narayanan, L ; Opatrny, J ; Shende, S. ( October 2018 , Lecture notes in computer science)

   We introduce and study a new search-type problem with ( 𝑛+1 )-robots on a disk. The searchers (robots) all start from the center of the disk, have unit speed, and can communicate wirelessly. The goal is for a distinguished robot (the queen) to reach and evacuate from an exit that is hidden on the perimeter of the disk in as little time as possible. The remaining n robots (servants) are there to facilitate the queen’s objective and are not required to reach the hidden exit. We provide upper and lower bounds for the time required to evacuate the queen. Namely, we propose an algorithm specifying the trajectories of the robots which guarantees evacuation of the queen in time always better than 2+4(\sqrt{2}-1)\pi/n for 𝑛≥4 servants. We also demonstrate that for 𝑛≥4 servants the queen cannot be evacuated in time less than 2 + \pi/n + 2/n^2.
4. Wake-up radio-based data forwarding for green wireless networks

   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.comcom.2020.05.046  

   Koutsandria, G. ; DiValerio, V. ; Spenza, D. ; Basagni, S. ; Petrioli, C. ( April 2020 , Computer communications)

   Green wireless networks Wake-up radio Energy harvesting Routing Markov decision process Reinforcement learning 1. Introduction With 14.2 billions of connected things in 2019, over 41.6 billions expected by 2025, and a total spending on endpoints and services that will reach well over $1.1 trillion by the end of 2026, the Internet of Things (IoT) is poised to have a transformative impact on the way we live and on the way we work [1–3]. The vision of this ‘‘connected continuum’’ of objects and people, however, comes with a wide variety of challenges, especially for those IoT networks whose devices rely on some forms of depletable energy support. This has prompted research on hardware and software solutions aimed at decreasing the depen- dence of devices from ‘‘pre-packaged’’ energy provision (e.g., batteries), leading to devices capable of harvesting energy from the environment, and to networks – often called green wireless networks – whose lifetime is virtually infinite. Despite the promising advances of energy harvesting technologies, IoT devices are still doomed to run out of energy due to their inherent constraints on resources such as storage, processing and communica- tion, whose energy requirements often exceed what harvesting can provide. The communication circuitry of prevailingmore »radio technology, especially, consumes relevant amount of energy even when in idle state, i.e., even when no transmissions or receptions occur. Even duty cycling, namely, operating with the radio in low energy consumption ∗ Corresponding author. E-mail address: koutsandria@di.uniroma1.it (G. Koutsandria). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.comcom.2020.05.046 (sleep) mode for pre-set amounts of time, has been shown to only mildly alleviate the problem of making IoT devices durable [4]. An effective answer to eliminate all possible forms of energy consumption that are not directly related to communication (e.g., idle listening) is provided by ultra low power radio triggering techniques, also known as wake-up radios [5,6]. Wake-up radio-based networks allow devices to remain in sleep mode by turning off their main radio when no communication is taking place. Devices continuously listen for a trigger on their wake-up radio, namely, for a wake-up sequence, to activate their main radio and participate to communication tasks. Therefore, devices wake up and turn their main radio on only when data communication is requested by a neighboring device. Further energy savings can be obtained by restricting the number of neighboring devices that wake up when triggered. This is obtained by allowing devices to wake up only when they receive specific wake-up sequences, which correspond to particular protocol requirements, including distance from the destina- tion, current energy status, residual energy, etc. This form of selective awakenings is called semantic addressing [7]. Use of low-power wake-up radio with semantic addressing has been shown to remarkably reduce the dominating energy costs of communication and idle listening of traditional radio networking [7–12]. This paper contributes to the research on enabling green wireless networks for long lasting IoT applications. Specifically, we introduce a ABSTRACT This paper presents G-WHARP, for Green Wake-up and HARvesting-based energy-Predictive forwarding, a wake-up radio-based forwarding strategy for wireless networks equipped with energy harvesting capabilities (green wireless networks). Following a learning-based approach, G-WHARP blends energy harvesting and wake-up radio technology to maximize energy efficiency and obtain superior network performance. Nodes autonomously decide on their forwarding availability based on a Markov Decision Process (MDP) that takes into account a variety of energy-related aspects, including the currently available energy and that harvestable in the foreseeable future. Solution of the MDP is provided by a computationally light heuristic based on a simple threshold policy, thus obtaining further computational energy savings. The performance of G-WHARP is evaluated via GreenCastalia simulations, where we accurately model wake-up radios, harvestable energy, and the computational power needed to solve the MDP. Key network and system parameters are varied, including the source of harvestable energy, the network density, wake-up radio data rate and data traffic. We also compare the performance of G-WHARP to that of two state-of-the-art data forwarding strategies, namely GreenRoutes and CTP-WUR. Results show that G-WHARP limits energy expenditures while achieving low end-to-end latency and high packet delivery ratio. Particularly, it consumes up to 34% and 59% less energy than CTP-WUR and GreenRoutes, respectively.« less
5. BrainNet: A Multi-Person Brain-to-Brain Interface for Direct Collaboration Between Brains

   https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-41895-7  

   Jiang, Linxing ; Stocco, Andrea ; Losey, Darby M. ; Abernethy, Justin A. ; Prat, Chantel S. ; Rao, Rajesh P. N. ( April 2019 , Scientific Reports)

   We present BrainNet which, to our knowledge, is the first multi-person non-invasive direct brain-to-brain interface for collaborative problem solving. The interface combines electroencephalography (EEG) to record brain signals and transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) to deliver information noninvasively to the brain. The interface allows three human subjects to collaborate and solve a task using direct brain-to-brain communication. Two of the three subjects are designated as “Senders” whose brain signals are decoded using real-time EEG data analysis. The decoding process extracts each Sender’s decision about whether to rotate a block in a Tetris-like game before it is dropped to fill a line. The Senders’ decisions are transmitted via the Internet to the brain of a third subject, the “Receiver,” who cannot see the game screen. The Senders’ decisions are delivered to the Receiver’s brain via magnetic stimulation of the occipital cortex. The Receiver integrates the information received from the two Senders and uses an EEG interface to make a decision about either turning the block or keeping it in the same orientation. A second round of the game provides an additional chance for the Senders to evaluate the Receiver’s decision and send feedback to the Receiver’s brain, and for the Receiver tomore »rectify a possible incorrect decision made in the first round. We evaluated the performance of BrainNet in terms of (1) Group-level performance during the game, (2) True/False positive rates of subjects’ decisions, and (3) Mutual information between subjects. Five groups, each with three human subjects, successfully used BrainNet to perform the collaborative task, with an average accuracy of 81.25%. Furthermore, by varying the information reliability of the Senders by artificially injecting noise into one Sender’s signal, we investigated how the Receiver learns to integrate noisy signals in order to make a correct decision. We found that like conventional social networks, BrainNet allows Receivers to learn to trust the Sender who is more reliable, in this case, based solely on the information transmitted directly to their brains. Our results point the way to future brain-to-brain interfaces that enable cooperative problem solving by humans using a “social network” of connected brains.

   « less