Inkjet 3D printing has broad applications in areas such as health and energy due to its capability to precisely deposit micro-droplets of multi-functional materials. However, the droplet of the inkjet printing has different jetting behaviors including drop initiation, thinning, necking, pinching and flying, and they are vulnerable to disturbance from vibration, material inhomogeneity, etc. Such issues make it challenging to yield a consistent printing process and a defect-free final product with desired properties. Therefore, timely recognition of the droplet behavior is critical for inkjet printing quality assessment. In-situ video monitoring of the printing process paves a way for such recognition. In this paper, a novel feature identification framework is presented to recognize the spatiotemporal feature of in-situ monitoring videos for inkjet printing. Specifically, a spatiotemporal fusion network is used for droplet printing behavior classification. The categories are based on inkjet printability, which is related to both the static features (ligament, satellite, and meniscus) and dynamic features (ligament thinning, droplet pinch off, meniscus oscillation). For the recorded droplet jetting video data, two streams of networks, the frames sampled from video in spatial domain (associated with static features) and the optical flow in temporal domain (associated with dynamic features), are fused in different ways to recognize the droplet evolving behavior. Experiments results show that the proposed fusion network can recognize the droplet jetting behavior in the complex printing process and identify its printability with learned knowledge, which can ultimately enable the real-time inkjet printing quality control and further provide guidance to design optimal parameter settings for the inkjet printing process.
This content will become publicly available on July 1, 2024
Multiclass Reinforced Active Learning for Droplet Pinch-Off Behaviors Identification in Inkjet Printing
Inkjet printing (IJP) is one of the promising additive manufacturing techniques that yield many innovations in electronic and biomedical products. In IJP, the products are fabricated by depositing droplets on substrates, and the quality of the products is highly affected by the droplet pinch-off behaviors. Therefore, identifying pinch-off behaviors of droplets is critical. However, annotating the pinch-off behaviors is burdensome since a large amount of images of pinch-off behaviors can be collected. Active learning (AL) is a machine learning technique which extracts human knowledge by iteratively acquiring human annotation and updating the classification model for the pinch-off behaviors identification. Consequently, a good classification performance can be achieved with limited labels. However, during the query process, the most informative instances (i.e., images) are varying and most query strategies in AL cannot handle these dynamics since they are handcrafted. Thus, this paper proposes a multiclass reinforced active learning (MCRAL) framework in which a query strategy is trained by reinforcement learning (RL). We designed a unique intrinsic reward signal to improve the classification model performance. Moreover, how to extract the features from images for pinch-off behavior identification is not trivial. Thus, we used a graph convolutional network for droplet image feature extraction. The results show that MCRAL excels AL and can reduce human efforts in pinch-off behavior identification. We further demonstrated that, by linking the process parameters to the predicted droplet pinch-off behaviors, the droplet pinch-off behavior can be adjusted based on MCRAL.
more » « less- NSF-PAR ID:
- 10471393
- Publisher / Repository:
- ASME
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Journal of Manufacturing Science and Engineering
- Volume:
- 145
- Issue:
- 7
- ISSN:
- 1087-1357
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
null (Ed.)more » « less
Abstract -
more » « less
Abstract Inkjet printing (IJP) is an additive manufacturing process capable to produce intricate functional structures. The IJP process performance and the quality of the printed parts are considerably affected by the deposited droplets’ volume. Obtaining consistent droplets volume during the process is difficult to achieve because the droplets are prone to variations due to various material properties, process parameters, and environmental conditions. Experimental (i.e., IJP setup observations) and computational (i.e., computational fluid dynamics (CFD)) analysis are used to study the droplets variability; however, they are expensive and computationally inefficient, respectively. The objective of this paper is to propose a framework that can perform fast and accurate droplet volume predictions for unseen IJP driving voltage regimes. A two-step approach is adopted: (1) an emulator is constructed from the physics-based droplet volume simulations to overcome the computational complexity and (2) the emulator is calibrated by incorporating the experimental IJP observations. In particular, a scaled Gaussian stochastic process (s-GaSP) is deployed for the emulation and calibration. The resulting surrogate model is able to rapidly and accurately predict the IJP droplets volume. The proposed methodology is demonstrated by calibrating the simulated data (i.e., CFD droplet simulations) emulator with experimental data from two distinct materials, namely glycerol and isopropyl alcohol.
-
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
-
Active learning identifies data points from a pool of unlabeled examples whose labels, if made available, are most likely to improve the predictions of a supervised model. Most research on active learning assumes that an agent has access to the entire pool of unlabeled data and can ask for labels of any data points during an initial training phase. However, when incorporated in a larger task, an agent may only be able to query some subset of the unlabeled pool. An agent can also opportunistically query for labels that may be useful in the future, even if they are not immediately relevant. In this paper, we demonstrate that this type of opportunistic active learning can improve performance in grounding natural language descriptions of everyday objects---an important skill for home and office robots. We find, with a real robot in an object identification setting, that inquisitive behavior---asking users important questions about the meanings of words that may be off-topic for the current dialog---leads to identifying the correct object more often over time.more » « less
-
Hybrid rocket motors with paraffin-based fuels are of interest due to higher regression rates compared to other polymers. During paraffin combustion, a liquid layer forms on the fuel surface that, together with shearing forces from the oxidizer flow, results in the formation of instabilities at the fuel-oxidizer interface. These instabilities lead to the formation and entrainment of heterogeneous sized liquid droplets into the main flow and the combusting droplets result in higher motor output. The atomization process begins with droplet formation and ends with droplet pinch-off. The goal of this paper is to conduct an uncertainty quantification (UQ) analysis of the pinch-off process characterized by a pinch-off volume ($V_{po}$) and time ($t_{po}$). We study these quantities of interest (QoIs) in the context of a slab burner setup. We have developed a computationally expensive mathematical model that describes droplet formation under external forcing and trained an inexpensive Gaussian Process surrogate of the model to facilitate UQ. We use the pinch-off surrogate to forward propagate uncertainty of the model inputs to the QoIs and conduct two studies: one with gravity present and one without gravity effects. After forward-propagating the uncertainty of the inputs using the surrogate, we concluded that both QoIs have right-skewed distributions, corresponding to larger probability densities towards smaller pinch-off volumes and times. Specifically, for the pinch-off times, the resulting distributions reflect the effect of gravity acting against droplet formation, resulting in longer pinch-off times compared to the case where there is no gravity.more » « less
