skip to main content


Title: A manifold two-sample test study: integral probability metric with neural networks
Abstract

Two-sample tests are important areas aiming to determine whether two collections of observations follow the same distribution or not. We propose two-sample tests based on integral probability metric (IPM) for high-dimensional samples supported on a low-dimensional manifold. We characterize the properties of proposed tests with respect to the number of samples $n$ and the structure of the manifold with intrinsic dimension $d$. When an atlas is given, we propose a two-step test to identify the difference between general distributions, which achieves the type-II risk in the order of $n^{-1/\max \{d,2\}}$. When an atlas is not given, we propose Hölder IPM test that applies for data distributions with $(s,\beta )$-Hölder densities, which achieves the type-II risk in the order of $n^{-(s+\beta )/d}$. To mitigate the heavy computation burden of evaluating the Hölder IPM, we approximate the Hölder function class using neural networks. Based on the approximation theory of neural networks, we show that the neural network IPM test has the type-II risk in the order of $n^{-(s+\beta )/d}$, which is in the same order of the type-II risk as the Hölder IPM test. Our proposed tests are adaptive to low-dimensional geometric structure because their performance crucially depends on the intrinsic dimension instead of the data dimension.

 
more » « less
Award ID(s):
2012652
NSF-PAR ID:
10422481
Author(s) / Creator(s):
; ; ; ;
Publisher / Repository:
Oxford University Press
Date Published:
Journal Name:
Information and Inference: A Journal of the IMA
Volume:
12
Issue:
3
ISSN:
2049-8772
Page Range / eLocation ID:
p. 1867-1897
Format(s):
Medium: X
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. null (Ed.)
    Most of existing statistical theories on deep neural networks have sample complexities cursed by the data dimension and therefore cannot well explain the empirical success of deep learning on high-dimensional data. To bridge this gap, we propose to exploit the low-dimensional structures of the real world datasets and establish theoretical guarantees of convolutional residual networks (ConvResNet) in terms of function approximation and statistical recovery for binary classification problem. Specifically, given the data lying on a 𝑑-dimensional manifold isometrically embedded in ℝ^𝐷, we prove that if the network architecture is properly chosen, ConvResNets can (1) approximate Besov functions on manifolds with arbitrary accuracy, and (2) learn a classifier by minimizing the empirical logistic risk, which gives an excess risk in the order of 𝑛−2s/(2s+d), where 𝑠 is a smoothness parameter. This implies that the sample complexity depends on the intrinsic dimension 𝑑, instead of the data dimension 𝐷. Our results demonstrate that ConvResNets are adaptive to low-dimensional structures of data sets. 
    more » « less
  2. Summary

    Kernel two-sample tests have been widely used for multivariate data to test equality of distributions. However, existing tests based on mapping distributions into a reproducing kernel Hilbert space mainly target specific alternatives and do not work well for some scenarios when the dimension of the data is moderate to high due to the curse of dimensionality. We propose a new test statistic that makes use of a common pattern under moderate and high dimensions and achieves substantial power improvements over existing kernel two-sample tests for a wide range of alternatives. We also propose alternative testing procedures that maintain high power with low computational cost, offering easy off-the-shelf tools for large datasets. The new approaches are compared to other state-of-the-art tests under various settings and show good performance. We showcase the new approaches through two applications: the comparison of musks and nonmusks using the shape of molecules, and the comparison of taxi trips starting from John F. Kennedy airport in consecutive months. All proposed methods are implemented in an R package kerTests.

     
    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. An exciting recent development is the uptake of deep neural networks in many scientific fields, where the main objective is outcome prediction with a black-box nature. Significance testing is promising to address the black-box issue and explore novel scientific insights and interpretations of the decision-making process based on a deep learning model. However, testing for a neural network poses a challenge because of its black-box nature and unknown limiting distributions of parameter estimates while existing methods require strong assumptions or excessive computation. In this article, we derive one-split and two-split tests relaxing the assumptions and computational complexity of existing black-box tests and extending to examine the significance of a collection of features of interest in a dataset of possibly a complex type, such as an image. The one-split test estimates and evaluates a black-box model based on estimation and inference subsets through sample splitting and data perturbation. The two-split test further splits the inference subset into two but requires no perturbation. Also, we develop their combined versions by aggregating the p-values based on repeated sample splitting. By deflating the bias-sd-ratio, we establish asymptotic null distributions of the test statistics and the consistency in terms of Type II error. Numerically, we demonstrate the utility of the proposed tests on seven simulated examples and six real datasets. Accompanying this article is our python library dnn-inference (https://dnninference.readthedocs.io/en/latest/) that implements the proposed tests. 
    more » « less
  5. We consider stochastic zeroth-order optimization over Riemannian submanifolds embedded in Euclidean space, where the task is to solve Riemannian optimization problems with only noisy objective function evaluations. Toward this, our main contribution is to propose estimators of the Riemannian gradient and Hessian from noisy objective function evaluations, based on a Riemannian version of the Gaussian smoothing technique. The proposed estimators overcome the difficulty of nonlinearity of the manifold constraint and issues that arise in using Euclidean Gaussian smoothing techniques when the function is defined only over the manifold. We use the proposed estimators to solve Riemannian optimization problems in the following settings for the objective function: (i) stochastic and gradient-Lipschitz (in both nonconvex and geodesic convex settings), (ii) sum of gradient-Lipschitz and nonsmooth functions, and (iii) Hessian-Lipschitz. For these settings, we analyze the oracle complexity of our algorithms to obtain appropriately defined notions of ϵ-stationary point or ϵ-approximate local minimizer. Notably, our complexities are independent of the dimension of the ambient Euclidean space and depend only on the intrinsic dimension of the manifold under consideration. We demonstrate the applicability of our algorithms by simulation results and real-world applications on black-box stiffness control for robotics and black-box attacks to neural networks. 
    more » « less