More Like this

1. Random Quantum Circuits Transform Local Noise into Global White Noise

   https://doi.org/10.1007/s00220-024-04958-z  

   Dalzell, Alexander M. ; Hunter-Jones, Nicholas ; Brandão, Fernando G. S. L. ( March 2024 , Communications in Mathematical Physics)

   We study the distribution over measurement outcomes of noisy random quantum circuits in the regime of low fidelity, which corresponds to the setting where the computation experiences at least one gate-level error with probability close to one. We model noise by adding a pair of weak, unital, single-qubit noise channels after each two-qubit gate, and we show that for typical random circuit instances, correlations between the noisy output distribution$$p_{\text {noisy}}$$$p_{\text{noisy}}$and the corresponding noiseless output distribution$$p_{\text {ideal}}$$$p_{\text{ideal}}$shrink exponentially with the expected number of gate-level errors. Specifically, the linear cross-entropy benchmarkFthat measures this correlation behaves as$$F=\text {exp}(-2s\epsilon \pm O(s\epsilon ^2))$$$F=\text{exp}(-2sϵ\pm O\left(s{ϵ}^2\right))$, where$$\epsilon $$$ϵ$is the probability of error per circuit location andsis the number of two-qubit gates. Furthermore, if the noise is incoherent—for example, depolarizing or dephasing noise—the total variation distance between the noisy output distribution$$p_{\text {noisy}}$$$p_{\text{noisy}}$and the uniform distribution$$p_{\text {unif}}$$$p_{\text{unif}}$decays at precisely the same rate. Consequently, the noisy output distribution can be approximated as$$p_{\text {noisy}}\approx Fp_{\text {ideal}}+ (1-F)p_{\text {unif}}$$$p_{\text{noisy}}\approx F{p}_{\text{ideal}}+(1-F)p_{\text{unif}}$. In other words, although at least one local error occurs with probability$$1-F$$$1-F$, the errors are scrambled by the random quantum circuit and can be treated as global white noise, contributing completely uniform output. Importantly, we upper bound the average total variation error in this approximation by$$O(F\epsilon \sqrt{s})$$$O\left(Fϵ\sqrt{s}\right)$. Thus, the “white-noise approximation” is meaningful when$$\epsilon \sqrt{s} \ll 1$$$ϵ\sqrt{s}\ll 1$, a quadratically weaker condition than the$$\epsilon s\ll 1$$$ϵs\ll 1$requirement to maintain high fidelity. The bound applies if the circuit size satisfies$$s \ge \Omega (n\log (n))$$$s\ge \Omega (nlog(n\left)\right)$, which corresponds to onlylogarithmic depthcircuits, and if, additionally, the inverse error rate satisfies$$\epsilon ^{-1} \ge {\tilde{\Omega }}(n)$$${ϵ}^{-1}\ge \tilde{\Omega }\left(n\right)$, which is needed to ensure errors are scrambled faster thanFdecays. The white-noise approximation is useful for salvaging the signal from a noisy quantum computation; for example, it was an underlying assumption in complexity-theoretic arguments that noisy random quantum circuits cannot be efficiently sampled classically, even when the fidelity is low. Our method is based on a map from second-moment quantities in random quantum circuits to expectation values of certain stochastic processes for which we compute upper and lower bounds.

    

   more » « less
2. Local Access to Random Walks , January 2022

   Biswas, A.S. ; Pyne, E. ; Rubinfeld, R. ( January 2022 , Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science (ITCS 2022))

   For a graph G on n vertices, naively sampling the position of a random walk of at time t requires work Ω(t). We desire local access algorithms supporting positionG(t) queries, which return the position of a random walk from some fixed start vertex s at time t, where the joint distribution of returned positions is 1/ poly(n) close to those of a uniformly random walk in ℓ1 distance. We first give an algorithm for local access to random walks on a given undirected d-regular graph with eO( 1 1−λ √ n) runtime per query, where λ is the second-largest eigenvalue of the random walk matrix of the graph in absolute value. Since random d-regular graphs G(n, d) are expanders with high probability, this gives an eO(√ n) algorithm for a graph drawn from G(n, d) whp, which improves on the naive method for small numbers of queries. We then prove that no algorithm with subconstant error given probe access to an input d-regular graph can have runtime better than Ω(√ n/ log(n)) per query in expectation when the input graph is drawn from G(n, d), obtaining a nearly matching lower bound. We further show an Ω(n1/4) runtime per query lower bound even with an oblivious adversary (i.e. when the query sequence is fixed in advance). We then show that for families of graphs with additional group theoretic structure, dramatically better results can be achieved. We give local access to walks on small-degree abelian Cayley graphs, including cycles and hypercubes, with runtime polylog(n) per query. This also allows for efficient local access to walks on polylog degree expanders. We show that our techniques apply to graphs with high degree by extending or results to graphs constructed using the tensor product (giving fast local access to walks on degree nϵ graphs for any ϵ ∈ (0, 1]) and Cartesian product. 

   more » « less
3. Efficient Parallel Output-Sensitive Edit Distance

   https://doi.org/10.4230/LIPIcs.ESA.2023.40  

   Ding, Xiangyun ; Dong, Xiaojun ; Gu, Yan ; Liu, Youzhe ; Sun, Yihan ( September 2023 , 31st Annual European Symposium on Algorithms (ESA 2023))

   Gørtz, Inge Li ; Farach-Colton, Martin ; Puglisi, Simon J. ; Herman, Grzegorz (Ed.)

   In this paper, we study efficient parallel edit distance algorithms, both in theory and in practice. Given two strings A[1..n] and B[1..m], and a set of operations allowed to edit the strings, the edit distance between A and B is the minimum number of operations required to transform A into B. In this paper, we use edit distance to refer to the Levenshtein distance, which allows for unit-cost single-character edits (insertions, deletions, substitutions). Sequentially, a standard Dynamic Programming (DP) algorithm solves edit distance with Θ(nm) cost. In many real-world applications, the strings to be compared are similar to each other and have small edit distances. To achieve highly practical implementations, we focus on output-sensitive parallel edit-distance algorithms, i.e., to achieve asymptotically better cost bounds than the standard Θ(nm) algorithm when the edit distance is small. We study four algorithms in the paper, including three algorithms based on Breadth-First Search (BFS), and one algorithm based on Divide-and-Conquer (DaC). Our BFS-based solution is based on the Landau-Vishkin algorithm. We implement three different data structures for the longest common prefix (LCP) queries needed in the algorithm: the classic solution using parallel suffix array, and two hash-based solutions proposed in this paper. Our DaC-based solution is inspired by the output-insensitive solution proposed by Apostolico et al., and we propose a non-trivial adaption to make it output-sensitive. All of the algorithms studied in this paper have good theoretical guarantees, and they achieve different tradeoffs between work (total number of operations), span (longest dependence chain in the computation), and space. We test and compare our algorithms on both synthetic data and real-world data, including DNA sequences, Wikipedia texts, GitHub repositories, etc. Our BFS-based algorithms outperform the existing parallel edit-distance implementation in ParlayLib in all test cases. On cases with fewer than 10⁵ edits, our algorithm can process input sequences of size 10⁹ in about ten seconds, while ParlayLib can only process sequences of sizes up to 10⁶ in the same amount of time. By comparing our algorithms, we also provide a better understanding of the choice of algorithms for different input patterns. We believe that our paper is the first systematic study in the theory and practice of parallel edit distance. 

   more » « less
4. 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
5. Graph Exploration by Energy-Sharing Mobile Agents

   Czyzowicz, J. ; Dobrev, S. ; Killick, R. ; Kranakis, E. ; Krizanc, D. ; Narayanan, L. ; Opatrny, J ; Pankratov, D. ; Shende, S. ( July 2021 , 28th International Colloquium on Structural Information and Communication Complexity (SIROCCO))

   null (Ed.)

   We consider the problem of collective exploration of a known n- node edge-weighted graph by k mobile agents that have limited energy but are capable of energy transfers. The agents are initially placed at an arbitrary subset of nodes in the graph, and each agent has an initial, possibly different, amount of energy. The goal of the exploration problem is for every edge in the graph to be traversed by at least one agent. The amount of energy used by an agent to travel distance x is proportional to x. In our model, the agents can share energy when co-located: when two agents meet, one can transfer part of its energy to the other. For an n-node path, we give an O(n+k) time algorithm that either nds an exploration strategy, or reports that one does not exist. For an n-node tree with l leaves, we give an O(n+lk^2) algorithm that finds an exploration strategy if one exists. Finally, for the general graph case, we show that the problem of deciding if exploration is possible by energy-sharing agents is NP-hard, even for 3-regular graphs. In addition, we show that it is always possible to find an exploration strategy if the total energy of the agents is at least twice the total weight of the edges; moreover, this is asymptotically optimal. 

   more » « less