Slashdot Mirror


CERN Tests First Artificial Retina Capable of Looking For High Energy Particles

KentuckyFC writes: Pattern recognition is one of the few areas where humans regularly outperform even the most powerful computers. Our extraordinary ability is a result of the way our bodies process visual information. But surprisingly, our brains only do part of the work. The most basic pattern recognition—edge detection, line detection and the detection of certain shapes—is performed by the complex circuitry of neurons in the retina. Now particle physicists are copying this trick to hunt for new particles. A team at CERN has built and tested an artificial retina capable of identifying particle tracks in the debris from particle collisions. The retina can do this at the same rate the LHC smashes particles together: about 800 million collisions per second. In other words, it can sift through the data in real time. The team says the retina outperforms any other particle-detecting device by a factor of 400v.

60 comments

  1. Load me up! by lawnboy5-O · · Score: 0

    Can it teach me kung fu?

  2. What about the US of A? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    What are US scientists up to? Apart from teaching creationism, of course. lol

    1. Re:What about the US of A? by towermac · · Score: 1

      A few are working at CERN, the best place in the world to analyze particle collisions. :p

      You know, CERN? That ultra cool science experiment that is truly a collaboration of a good many nations? The one that has no interest in who the current superpower is, because it's devoted to pure science?

      Yeah, that one.

    2. Re:What about the US of A? by kyrsjo · · Score: 1

      Quite a few US universities are heavily involved in CERN. And European universities. And Russian. And to an increasing amount, Chinese. And also many others.

      The people "teaching" (implying that there is something worthwhile to learn) creationism, are not scientists - they are coming up with neither new data or reasonable interpretations. So thus no US scientists are "teaching" that steaming pile of poo.

      As a European, it would be great if /. would stop descending into the "USA sucks" vs "Muh freeduuum units and muh F-150" idiot-fight it often does :/ It used to be a nice place...

  3. 400v? by Slagothor · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "The team says the retina outperforms any other particle-detecting device by a factor of 400v." 400v! What the hell is a factor of 400 volts?

    1. Re:400v? by TomR+teh+Pirate · · Score: 1

      if only I had mod points for you...

    2. Re:400v? by Slagothor · · Score: 1

      if only I had mod points for you...

      It's been so long since I've posted. It's the thought that counts!

    3. Re:400v? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's 4005, an Arabic-Roman numeral combo.

    4. Re:400v? by Fwipp · · Score: 4, Informative

      For what it's worth, this is an editorial failure - the linked paper properly cites a factor of "400" - no V anywhere.

    5. Re:400v? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 0

      What the hell is a factor of 400 volts?

      It's a shockingly high factor that electrified the scientists and that will surely galvanize the search for unknown particles to new life.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    6. Re:400v? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a typo. 400x explains it all.

    7. Re:400v? by VAXcat · · Score: 1

      I can't stand this kind of disrespectful joking around, with puns no less. I'm positive that we can run the negative energy displayed by your post to ground.

      --
      There is no God, and Dirac is his prophet.
    8. Re:400v? by rmdingler · · Score: 1
      There are times when you can cool something up with the proper application of a crafty suffix at the end of an alphanumeric description, like the two-eighty zee that Datsun/Nissan used to sell.

      That the increase in effectiveness is a factor of 400 is impressive enough by itself.

      But 400V times the productivity sounds more imposing.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    9. Re:400v? by rmdingler · · Score: 1

      I could buy the argument if it were 400c or 400b, but I cannot lay a digit on the 400x theory.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    10. Re:400v? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What the hell is a factor of 400 volts?

      If you want to nit pick: (capital) V is the symbol for Volt, and the unit has no ending s.

    11. Re:400v? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      V is the symbol for Volt

      To nitpick (one word!) myself: the unit volt is not capitalized, unless it starts a sentence or something similar.

  4. That is a big factor! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    a factor of 400v !!

  5. Wow really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The team says the retina outperforms any other particle-detecting device by a factor of 400v.

    Sort of like saying "faster than any other car by 400 sheckles to the foot pound."

  6. But by rossdee · · Score: 0

    will this new retina help me find my missing socks?

    Is this s tep towards X-Ray vision? Wouldn't the rest of the eye have to be modified to (lens cornea etc)

  7. Do not ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    2. Do not look into particle beam with remaining retina.

    1. Re:Do not ... by towermac · · Score: 1

      Heh.

      I don't often mod ACs, but when I do, I mod them funny.

  8. In the retina? by volpe · · Score: 1

    is performed by the complex circuitry of neurons in the retina.

    Really? Not in the visual cortex of the brain? It's actually done in the retina itself?

    1. Re:In the retina? by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

      is performed by the complex circuitry of neurons in the retina.

      Really? Not in the visual cortex of the brain? It's actually done in the retina itself?

      That's the point they were making, yes.

    2. Re:In the retina? by confused+one · · Score: 1

      Yes, yes it is. The retina does the edge detection and detects changes in intensity. What the brain gets is not full streaming video.... It's more like lossy, high compression data. The brain fills in all the missing data as needed.

    3. Re:In the retina? by Ken+McE · · Score: 1

      volpe (58112): Really?... It's actually done in the retina itself?

      There are a variety of processes that are applied to visual data before it comes to your awareness, the retina is first level of screening. The tissue of the retina is not that different than neural tissue, it is perfectly capable of comparing things and making decisions. A video camera will look at every pixel in its range equally and send of all its data uniformly. A living visual system is actively working to prune out anything you don't need to notice and is also working to highlight things that may have survival value. It starts right there in the retina.

    4. Re: In the retina? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My retina is making decisions? That must be why I keep looking at pretty girls, when my brain says not to.

    5. Re:In the retina? by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      Yep, the eye is basically a part of the brain.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    6. Re:In the retina? by volpe · · Score: 1

      Thanks for all the replies, folks. That's fascinating.

  9. oblig by cellocgw · · Score: 0

    I see what they did there.

    Sorry.

    --
    https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
  10. Summary by kyrsjo · · Score: 5, Informative

    So, to summarize the paper
    http://arxiv.org/pdf/1409.1565... :

    They have developed an algorithm for quickly giving a rough interpretation of the raw data stream coming out from the detector, i.e. converting the information that "value pixel A =12, value of pixel B = 43, ..." into useful physics data like "a particle with momentum vector P and charge Q was probably created 2 m from the collision point". This algorithm is special in that it can be implemented on an FPGA, and is somehow inspired by the retina of our eyes. Because it can run on an FPGA, it has the potential to be much faster, and can handle much larger data fluxes than current algorithms.

    This is needed, because in a few years, we will upgrade the LHC such that it produces many more collisions per second, i.e. the data rates will be much higher. We do this to get more statistics, which may uncover rare physics processes (such as was done for the Higgs boson). Not all of this data deluge can be written to disk (or even downloaded from the detector hardware), so we use a trigger which decides which collisions are interesting enough to read out and store. This trigger works by downloading *part* of the data to a computing cluster that sits in the next room (yes, it does run on Linux), quickly reconstructing the event, and sending the "READ" signal to the rest of the detector if it fits certain criteria indicating that (for example) a heavy particle was created. If the data rate goes up, so must the processing speed, or else we will run out of buffers on the detector.

    1. Re:Summary by towermac · · Score: 1

      "This algorithm is special in that it can be implemented on an FPGA"

      Question: Are current FPGAs faster than 10-15 year old CPUs?

      I'm thinking G4s or Athlons or something that's old enough to be easy and cheap to make today at any old fab, yet new enough that the dies and equipment are still around, and it can be ordered.

      Take your final FPGA and burn chips from it (I know they do that). Run a hundred, and CERN might pay 20 grand a chip if they're good enough. I made that number up'; I don't have a clue, but that's where I'm going with my question.

    2. Re:Summary by danceswithtrees · · Score: 1

      Question: Are current FPGAs faster than 10-15 year old CPUs?

      Umm, I think you have things backwards. For certain tasks, FPGAs are phenomenally faster than any general purpose CPU. The correct question should be:

      Are current FPGAs faster than CPUs 10-15 years from now?

    3. Re:Summary by kyrsjo · · Score: 1

      Oh, and 2 m should have been 2 um. Slashdot ate my alt-gr+m = \mu...

    4. Re:Summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      present day high end fpga's beat the crap out of present day cpu's for this type of workloads
      and they probably buy them fpga's and boards in industrial quantities anyway
      and fpga's can be reconfigured relatively easily, asic have to have sockets for chips and make a new batch each time?

      and once one calculates the cost of ip, for the different components of the asic design.. might not be cost effective.

      the above is pure speculation on my part.

    5. Re:Summary by kyrsjo · · Score: 1

      FPGAs are very different beasts from normal CPUs - as far as I understand, they are very well suited to doing relatively simple tasks ridiculously fast, and one chip can treat tons of data in parallel. However, they do not do so well on really complex algorithms, algorithms requiring lots of fast memory and branches, and they are harder to program than CPUs.

      In this case, I would think each cell cell in the (m,q) parameter space is handled by one "block" of the FPGA, and you then feed all the blocks the data stream coming off the detector. When you are finished reading the data into the FPGA, you can then read the result back from each block.

      When you "burn" a chip from a FPGA, what it means is that you take the VHDL (etc) code and compile it into a format which you can use to produce specialized chips, instead of a format for programming an FPGA.

    6. Re:Summary by kyrsjo · · Score: 1

      > and they probably buy them fpga's and boards in industrial quantities anyway
      Njaaa. Define "industrial quantities". Mostly I've seen people use a few 10s of them, not 100s or 1000s.

      The really expensive part about ASICs are to make the masks for lithography etc., not how many chips you make. Thus you don't want to make a new chip unless you *really* need to.

    7. Re:Summary by towermac · · Score: 1

      "When you "burn" a chip from a FPGA, what it means is that you take the VHDL (etc) code and compile it into a format which you can use to produce specialized chips, instead of a format for programming an FPGA."

      Yes, and the problem now, and certainly in the future, is data overwhelming the computational resources. And as an above poster noted, the big cost in a custom ASIC is laying it out.

      I had assumed that the gate layout (and thus the logic programming) in any FPGA was still far simpler than last decade's CPU. An FPGA can be far faster than a CPU executing some complied machine language, but can't be faster than custom silicon. (I botched the initial question).

      They give away Athlons for 10 bucks nowadays. If you could burn your custom asic into that, even if you wasted most of what used to be the Athlon; it would be fast as shit running your FPGA program natively. One you paid to lay it out, seems to me it might be cheap as shit to run a few thousand of them, and saturate the area with these detectors. Which feed already vastly condensed data that we would be capable of capturing.

      If the next next particle is a million times harder to detect than the Higgs, it would be nice to process all the data from the sensors. I was trying to think of a way to do it, but more within my realm of expertise, I should have asked: How much would it cost?

    8. Re:Summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > and they probably buy them fpga's and boards in industrial quantities anyway
      Njaaa. Define "industrial quantities". Mostly I've seen people use a few 10s of them, not 100s or 1000s.

      CERN buys tens of thousands of FPGAs per year.

    9. Re:Summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can't burn a new layout into a completed chip, and even if you could, you'd have the same expenses (mask costs and the like) to worry about.

      It might be cheap enough to produce an ASIC on an older process, as mask costs tend to be lower there. It depends on what sort of clock speeds they need and what sort of power consumption they can afford (in terms of cooling in this case, not so much electrical cost).

      Of course, it could turn out that for a low-production run of chips, you could just make it bigger and use less complexity in the layout, and possibly save on mask count (and thus cost) that way. Maybe you'd need to run a few wafers instead of just one, but that would hardly be relevant compared to the mask cost.

    10. Re:Summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good summary, but I have to point out that for the particular experiment they had in mind (LHCb) the decision was made to go with a full software trigger (reading out all of the detector not just parts of it) at the full 40MHz and do everything (including the reconstruction) in software.

      Basically, if you can you would always do things in software instead of a less flexible and "hard wired" FPGA implementation. It is much more flexible, you can do more sophisticated things and it is easier to maintain.

      A very detailed and technical description of the plan can be found here: http://cds.cern.ch/record/1701361/?ln=en (skip to page 58 of the PDF) and even more details on the software here: http://cds.cern.ch/record/1670987?ln=en

      Full disclosure: I worked on the software solution that was chosen in the end.

    11. Re:Summary by Neil+Boekend · · Score: 1

      FPGA's and CPUs are different enough that it is hard to compare the speed. For some tasks FPGA's are way faster, for most tasks CPU's are way faster.
      Think of the FPGA as a hummer and the CPU as a Ferrari. Most driving is done on roads, where the Ferrari is faster. However, in rough country I would bet on the Hummer.

      Take your final FPGA and burn chips from it (I know they do that). Run a hundred, and CERN might pay 20 grand a chip if they're good enough. I made that number up'; I don't have a clue, but that's where I'm going with my question.

      Converting FPGA programming to chips means you need to invest millions to produce masks. You ain't gonna do that for a few hundred if you can avoid it.
      Those chips are called ASICs. They are usually faster then the FPGA. And if you need many then they are cheaper.

      --
      Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
    12. Re:Summary by Neil+Boekend · · Score: 1

      They give away Athlons for 10 bucks nowadays. If you could burn your custom asic into that, even if you wasted most of what used to be the Athlon; it would be fast as shit running your FPGA program natively. One you paid to lay it out, seems to me it might be cheap as shit to run a few thousand of them, and saturate the area with these detectors. Which feed already vastly condensed data that we would be capable of capturing.

      That is just not how it works. You can't convert an athlon to a custom ASIC. The part that is the Athlon is the hardware.
      To make a custom ASIC you need to make different hardware. That means making masks (cost a few million $), testing, making new masks, testing, running a batch, testing, testing testing.
      With this batch size it isn't really interesting unless they need the additional speed ASICs bring.

      --
      Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
  11. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  12. Summary is completely misleading by danceswithtrees · · Score: 2

    Reading the abstract, it is clear that what they did was to do image analysis using an algorithm (albeit in FPGA) modeled on what happens in the retina. Other than the speed advantage, there is nothing special about this that makes it an artificial retina. If you take a picture with a cellphone and do edge detection using software, is that an artificial retina? I would argue no more or less than what is described here.

    TFS makes it sound like the image detectors are actually doing edge detection like the retina. The image sensors (CCD or CMOS or whatever) is doing no such thing. The image sensors are providing raw images that are being analyzed using edge detection algorithms using an FPGA.

    There are VLSI implementations of retina-like processing, i.e. center excite, surround inhibit, that can do edge detection/enhancement, but this ain't it.

    1. Re:Summary is completely misleading by towermac · · Score: 1

      "The image sensors (CCD or CMOS or whatever) is doing no such thing."

      What if you mounted the FPGA right on the back of the CCD? Say they power up together as one unit. It outputs direction, velocity and charge, instead of video screens. I think that might count as an artificial retina.

      Then, when I consider that they just have longer wires, and are very bad mounters, then the line blurs, and maybe this does count...

    2. Re:Summary is completely misleading by danceswithtrees · · Score: 1

      Yes, I guess there is a spectrum of implementations of retina-like processing. On one side, there is the retina and on the other side, a digital camera followed by Photoshop. This is being done algorithmically in FPGA so is closer to the Photoshop end of the spectrum.

      There are silicon models of retinal processing. See
      http://authors.library.caltech...
      And there is a book by Carver Mead (I think he was the thesis advisor for above dissertation) called "Analog VLSI and Neural Systems" with a chapter on in silico retinal processing. This is what I would call an artificial retina.

      What they made at CERN would more honestly be called a real-time FPGA implementation of retina-like processing. The length of the wires have little to do with it.

    3. Re:Summary is completely misleading by kyrsjo · · Score: 1

      Part of the method may very well be to put the clustering algorithm directly onto the the same chip as is doing the digital readout of the sensor, i.e. bump-bonded on the back of the sensor, directly providing estimated (x,y) coordinates of the particle hits instead of raw pixel data with zero-suppression as is traditionally done.

      However, this is not what this paper is discussing. It discusses mapping the parameter space (m,q) of the gradient and intercept of a particle track y=m*z+q into some kind of matrix, and then applying an algorithm which describes how well the data fits with each of the points in the parameter space. This is thus integrating the information from several sub-detectors, and can thus not be done on the "image sensor" (which is usually a "hybrid", i.e. a chip with an array of detector diodes, coupled to another chip which has the electronics).

      While this paper is pretty light on details (I'm guessing some sort of conference paper), it references another single-author paper in NIM A (which author is also a co-author on this paper) from 2000:
      http://www.sciencedirect.com/s...
      It appears to be open-access, at least I can read it without logging in to VPN.

    4. Re:Summary is completely misleading by kyrsjo · · Score: 1

      The algorithm combines data from several sensors.

    5. Re:Summary is completely misleading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A real retina has the rods and cones on one layer, there is additional layers that do color-opposition enhancement going on blue-yellow, red-green, black-white. Then you have various neurons that do edge and spot detection using texture filter banks like Leung Malik and Schmidt. The raw data would consist of a 100 mega-pixel HD image, but that gets compressed down to 10 million neurons arranged in bundles of 1000 each. This system seems to do something similar, they are looking for edges or curves, so various filters would work for them. Stick the FPGA at the back of the CCD, do some basic convolution kernels and they get a yes/no answer if anything interesting happened.

    6. Re:Summary is completely misleading by citizenr · · Score: 1
      --
      Who logs in to gdm? Not I, said the duck.
  13. Impressive! by MildlyTangy · · Score: 0

    Wow, thats pretty impressive that this "retina" can do this in real time, but whats most impressive is that it can do it by a factor of 400 volts. No other machine even comes close, they are sitting somewhere in the 250 microvolt factor range.

    Champagne for the first team to break the kilovolt factor barrier!

  14. Geordie laforge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Geordie laforge

  15. Bladerunner by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

    "I only do eyes ..."

  16. Hough Transform? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How is this 'artificial retina' algorithm different from a Hough Transform (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hough_transform)?
    So is this an FPGA implementation of a Hough Transform?

  17. Hough Transform? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They have developed an algorithm for quickly giving a rough interpretation of the raw data stream

    Isn't the algorithm 'just' a Hough transform? The picture show as example looks remarkably similar to the
    one on wikipedia.

  18. Hidden content by JimSadler · · Score: 1

    The fact that the retina actually has intelligent functions is very important. There has been some long running beliefs that in psychiatric patients who have visual hallucinations that the patient actually sees something generated by the brain in the eye. If the retina is performing intelligent functions then perhaps some components of mental diseases do reside in the eyes. Perhaps it explains the rigid insistence by the patients that the visions are more real than normal sights.

  19. Artificial eyes by Ceriel+Nosforit · · Score: 1

    Does anybody know how the bionic eyes which have been tested do this? Do they attempt to send their entire data stream, or do they know to do this part in silica?

    --
    All rites reversed 2010