skip to main content


This content will become publicly available on March 16, 2024

Title: Age-Optimal Low-Power Status Update over Time-Correlated Fading Channel
In this paper, we consider transmission scheduling in a status update system, where updates are generated periodically and transmitted over a Gilbert-Elliott fading channel. The goal is to minimize the long-run average age of information (AoI) under a long-run average energy constraint. We consider two practical cases to obtain channel state information (CSI): (i) without channel sensing and (ii) with delayed channel sensing. For (i), CSI is revealed by the feedback (ACK/NACK) of a transmission, but when no transmission occurs, CSI is not revealed. Thus, we have to balance tradeoffs across energy, AoI, channel exploration, and channel exploitation. The problem is formulated as a constrained partially observable Markov decision process (POMDP). We show that the optimal policy is a randomized mixture of no more than two stationary deterministic policies each of which is of a threshold-type in the belief on the channel. For (ii), (delayed) CSI is available via channel sensing. Then, the tradeoff is only between the AoI and energy. The problem is formulated as a constrained MDP. The optimal policy is shown to have a similar structure as in (i) but with an AoI associated threshold. With these, we develop an optimal structure-aware algorithm for each case.  more » « less
Award ID(s):
2107363 2106993
NSF-PAR ID:
10421938
Author(s) / Creator(s):
; ;
Date Published:
Journal Name:
IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing
ISSN:
1536-1233
Page Range / eLocation ID:
1 to 1
Format(s):
Medium: X
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. null (Ed.)
    In this paper, we study the problem of minimizing the age of information when a source can transmit status updates over two heterogeneous channels. Our work is motivated by recent developments in 5G mmWave technology, where transmissions may occur over an unreliable but fast (e.g., mmWave) channel or a slow reliable (e.g., sub-6GHz) channel. The unreliable channel is modeled as a time-correlated Gilbert-Elliot channel, where information can be transmitted at a high rate when the channel is in the "ON" state. The reliable channel provides a deterministic but lower data rate. The scheduling strategy determines the channel to be used for transmission with the aim to minimize the time-average age of information (AoI). The optimal scheduling problem is formulated as a Markov Decision Process (MDP), which in our setting poses some significant challenges because e.g., supermodularity does not hold for part of the state space. We show that there exists a multi-dimensional threshold-based scheduling policy that is optimal for minimizing the age. A low-complexity bisection algorithm is further devised to compute the optimal thresholds. Numerical simulations are provided to compare different scheduling policies. 
    more » « less
  2. We consider an energy harvesting sensor transmit- ting latency-sensitive data over a fading channel. We aim to find the optimal transmission scheduling policy that minimizes the packet queuing delay given the available harvested energy. We formulate the problem as a Markov decision process (MDP) over a state-space spanned by the transmitter's buffer, battery, and channel states, and analyze the structural properties of the resulting optimal value function, which quantifies the long-run performance of the optimal scheduling policy. We show that the optimal value function (i) is non- decreasing and has increasing differences in the queue backlog; (ii) is non-increasing and has increasing differences in the battery state; and (iii) is submodular in the buffer and battery states. Our numerical results confirm these properties and demonstrate that the optimal scheduling policy outperforms a so-called greedy policy in terms of sensor outages, buffer overflows, energy efficiency, and queuing delay. 
    more » « less
  3. 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
  4. We investigate the management of a merchant wind energy farm co‐located with a grid‐level storage facility and connected to a market through a transmission line. We formulate this problem as a Markov decision process (MDP) with stochastic wind speed and electricity prices. Consistent with most deregulated electricity markets, our model allows these prices to be negative. As this feature makes it difficult to characterize any optimal policy of our MDP, we show the optimality of astage‐ and partial‐state‐dependent‐thresholdpolicy when prices can only be positive. We extend this structure when prices can also be negative to develop heuristic one (H1) that approximately solves a stochastic dynamic program. We then simplify H1 to obtain heuristic two (H2) that relies on aprice‐dependent‐thresholdpolicy and derivative‐free deterministic optimization embedded within a Monte Carlo simulation of the random processes of our MDP. We conduct an extensive and data‐calibrated numerical study to assess the performance of these heuristics and variants of known ones against the optimal policy, as well as to quantify the effect of negative prices on the value added by and environmental benefit of storage. We find that (i) H1 computes an optimal policy and on average is about 17 times faster to execute than directly obtaining an optimal policy; (ii) H2 has a near optimal policy (with a 2.86% average optimality gap), exhibits a two orders of magnitude average speed advantage over H1, and outperforms the remaining considered heuristics; (iii) storage brings in more value but its environmental benefit falls as negative electricity prices occur more frequently in our model.

     
    more » « less
  5. null (Ed.)
    We consider an ultra-dense wireless network with N channels and M = N devices. Messages with fresh information are generated at each device according to a random process and need to be transmitted to an access point. The value of a message decreases as it ages, so each device searches for an idle channel to transmit the message as soon as it can. However, each channel probing is associated with a fixed cost (energy), so a device needs to adapt its probing rate based on the "age" of the message. At each device, the design of the optimal probing strategy can be formulated as an infinite horizon Markov Decision Process (MDP) where the devices compete with each other to find idle channels. While it is natural to view the system as a Bayesian game, it is often intractable to analyze such a system. Thus, we use the Mean Field Game (MFG) approach to analyze the system in a large-system regime, where the number of devices is very large, to understand the structure of the problem and to find efficient probing strategies. We present an analysis based on the MFG perspective. We begin by characterizing the space of valid policies and use this to show the existence of a Mean Field Nash Equilibrium (MFNE) in a constrained set for any general increasing cost functions with diminishing rewards. Further we provide an algorithm for computing the equilibrium for any given device, and the corresponding age-dependent channel probing policy. 
    more » « less