More Like this

1. Describing posterior distributions of variance components: Problems and the use of null distributions to aid interpretation

   https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.14200  

   Pick, Joel L. ; Kasper, Claudia ; Allegue, Hassen ; Dingemanse, Niels J. ; Dochtermann, Ned A. ; Laskowski, Kate L. ; Lima, Marcos R. ; Schielzeth, Holger ; Westneat, David F. ; Wright, Jonathan ; et al ( September 2023 , Methods in Ecology and Evolution)

   Assessing the biological relevance of variance components estimated using Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC)‐based mixed‐effects models is not straightforward. Variance estimates are constrained to be greater than zero and their posterior distributions are often asymmetric. Different measures of central tendency for these distributions can therefore vary widely, and credible intervals cannot overlap zero, making it difficult to assess the size and statistical support for among‐group variance. Statistical support is often assessed through visual inspection of the whole posterior distribution and so relies on subjective decisions for interpretation.

   We use simulations to demonstrate the difficulties of summarizing the posterior distributions of variance estimates from MCMC‐based models. We then describe different methods for generating the expected null distribution (i.e. a distribution of effect sizes that would be obtained if there was no among‐group variance) that can be used to aid in the interpretation of variance estimates.

   Through comparing commonly used summary statistics of posterior distributions of variance components, we show that the posterior median is predominantly the least biased. We further show how null distributions can be used to derive ap‐value that provides complementary information to the commonly presented measures of central tendency and uncertainty. Finally, we show how thesep‐values facilitate the implementation of power analyses within an MCMC framework.

   The use of null distributions for variance components can aid study design and the interpretation of results from MCMC‐based models. We hope that this manuscript will make empiricists using mixed models think more carefully about their results, what descriptive statistics they present and what inference they can make.

    

   more » « less
2. Distributed Bayesian Varying Coefficient Modeling Using a Gaussian Process Prior

   Guhaniyogi, R. ; Li, C. ; Savitsky, T.D. ; Srivastava, S. ( May 2022 , Journal of machine learning research)

   McCulloch, R. (Ed.)

   Varying coefficient models (VCMs) are widely used for estimating nonlinear regression functions for functional data. Their Bayesian variants using Gaussian process priors on the functional coefficients, however, have received limited attention in massive data applications, mainly due to the prohibitively slow posterior computations using Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) algorithms. We address this problem using a divide-and-conquer Bayesian approach. We first create a large number of data subsamples with much smaller sizes. Then, we formulate the VCM as a linear mixed-effects model and develop a data augmentation algorithm for obtaining MCMC draws on all the subsets in parallel. Finally, we aggregate the MCMC-based estimates of subset posteriors into a single Aggregated Monte Carlo (AMC) posterior, which is used as a computationally efficient alternative to the true posterior distribution. Theoretically, we derive minimax optimal posterior convergence rates for the AMC posteriors of both the varying coefficients and the mean regression function. We provide quantification on the orders of subset sample sizes and the number of subsets. The empirical results show that the combination schemes that satisfy our theoretical assumptions, including the AMC posterior, have better estimation performance than their main competitors across diverse simulations and in a real data analysis. 

   more » « less
3. Learning joint latent space EBM prior model for multi-layer generator

   Cui, J. ; Wu, Y. N. ; Han, T. ( June 2023 , Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR 2023))

   This paper studies the fundamental problem of learning multi-layer generator models. The multi-layer generator model builds multiple layers of latent variables as a prior model on top of the generator, which benefits learning complex data distribution and hierarchical representations. However, such a prior model usually focuses on modeling inter-layer relations between latent variables by assuming non-informative (conditional) Gaussian distributions, which can be limited in model expressivity. To tackle this issue and learn more expressive prior models, we propose an energy-based model (EBM) on the joint latent space over all layers of latent variables with the multi-layer generator as its backbone. Such joint latent space EBM prior model captures the intra-layer contextual relations at each layer through layer-wise energy terms, and latent variables across different layers are jointly corrected. We develop a joint training scheme via maximum likelihood estimation (MLE), which involves Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) sampling for both prior and posterior distributions of the latent variables from different layers. To ensure efficient inference and learning, we further propose a variational training scheme where an inference model is used to amortize the costly posterior MCMC sampling. Our experiments demonstrate that the learned model can be expressive in generating high-quality images and capturing hierarchical features for better outlier detection. 

   more » « less
4. The Temple University Digital Pathology Corpus: The Breast Tissue Subset

   https://doi.org/10.1109/SPMB52430.2021.9672275  

   Wevodau, Z. ; Doshna, B. ; Jhala, N. ; Akhtar, I. ; Obeid, I. ; Picone, J. ( December 2021 , Proceedings of the IEEE Signal Processing in Medicine and Biology Symposium (SPMB))

   Obeid, I. (Ed.)

   The Neural Engineering Data Consortium (NEDC) is developing the Temple University Digital Pathology Corpus (TUDP), an open source database of high-resolution images from scanned pathology samples [1], as part of its National Science Foundation-funded Major Research Instrumentation grant titled “MRI: High Performance Digital Pathology Using Big Data and Machine Learning” [2]. The long-term goal of this project is to release one million images. We have currently scanned over 100,000 images and are in the process of annotating breast tissue data for our first official corpus release, v1.0.0. This release contains 3,505 annotated images of breast tissue including 74 patients with cancerous diagnoses (out of a total of 296 patients). In this poster, we will present an analysis of this corpus and discuss the challenges we have faced in efficiently producing high quality annotations of breast tissue. It is well known that state of the art algorithms in machine learning require vast amounts of data. Fields such as speech recognition [3], image recognition [4] and text processing [5] are able to deliver impressive performance with complex deep learning models because they have developed large corpora to support training of extremely high-dimensional models (e.g., billions of parameters). Other fields that do not have access to such data resources must rely on techniques in which existing models can be adapted to new datasets [6]. A preliminary version of this breast corpus release was tested in a pilot study using a baseline machine learning system, ResNet18 [7], that leverages several open-source Python tools. The pilot corpus was divided into three sets: train, development, and evaluation. Portions of these slides were manually annotated [1] using the nine labels in Table 1 [8] to identify five to ten examples of pathological features on each slide. Not every pathological feature is annotated, meaning excluded areas can include focuses particular to these labels that are not used for training. A summary of the number of patches within each label is given in Table 2. To maintain a balanced training set, 1,000 patches of each label were used to train the machine learning model. Throughout all sets, only annotated patches were involved in model development. The performance of this model in identifying all the patches in the evaluation set can be seen in the confusion matrix of classification accuracy in Table 3. The highest performing labels were background, 97% correct identification, and artifact, 76% correct identification. A correlation exists between labels with more than 6,000 development patches and accurate performance on the evaluation set. Additionally, these results indicated a need to further refine the annotation of invasive ductal carcinoma (“indc”), inflammation (“infl”), nonneoplastic features (“nneo”), normal (“norm”) and suspicious (“susp”). This pilot experiment motivated changes to the corpus that will be discussed in detail in this poster presentation. To increase the accuracy of the machine learning model, we modified how we addressed underperforming labels. One common source of error arose with how non-background labels were converted into patches. Large areas of background within other labels were isolated within a patch resulting in connective tissue misrepresenting a non-background label. In response, the annotation overlay margins were revised to exclude benign connective tissue in non-background labels. Corresponding patient reports and supporting immunohistochemical stains further guided annotation reviews. The microscopic diagnoses given by the primary pathologist in these reports detail the pathological findings within each tissue site, but not within each specific slide. The microscopic diagnoses informed revisions specifically targeting annotated regions classified as cancerous, ensuring that the labels “indc” and “dcis” were used only in situations where a micropathologist diagnosed it as such. Further differentiation of cancerous and precancerous labels, as well as the location of their focus on a slide, could be accomplished with supplemental immunohistochemically (IHC) stained slides. When distinguishing whether a focus is a nonneoplastic feature versus a cancerous growth, pathologists employ antigen targeting stains to the tissue in question to confirm the diagnosis. For example, a nonneoplastic feature of usual ductal hyperplasia will display diffuse staining for cytokeratin 5 (CK5) and no diffuse staining for estrogen receptor (ER), while a cancerous growth of ductal carcinoma in situ will have negative or focally positive staining for CK5 and diffuse staining for ER [9]. Many tissue samples contain cancerous and non-cancerous features with morphological overlaps that cause variability between annotators. The informative fields IHC slides provide could play an integral role in machine model pathology diagnostics. Following the revisions made on all the annotations, a second experiment was run using ResNet18. Compared to the pilot study, an increase of model prediction accuracy was seen for the labels indc, infl, nneo, norm, and null. This increase is correlated with an increase in annotated area and annotation accuracy. Model performance in identifying the suspicious label decreased by 25% due to the decrease of 57% in the total annotated area described by this label. A summary of the model performance is given in Table 4, which shows the new prediction accuracy and the absolute change in error rate compared to Table 3. The breast tissue subset we are developing includes 3,505 annotated breast pathology slides from 296 patients. The average size of a scanned SVS file is 363 MB. The annotations are stored in an XML format. A CSV version of the annotation file is also available which provides a flat, or simple, annotation that is easy for machine learning researchers to access and interface to their systems. Each patient is identified by an anonymized medical reference number. Within each patient’s directory, one or more sessions are identified, also anonymized to the first of the month in which the sample was taken. These sessions are broken into groupings of tissue taken on that date (in this case, breast tissue). A deidentified patient report stored as a flat text file is also available. Within these slides there are a total of 16,971 total annotated regions with an average of 4.84 annotations per slide. Among those annotations, 8,035 are non-cancerous (normal, background, null, and artifact,) 6,222 are carcinogenic signs (inflammation, nonneoplastic and suspicious,) and 2,714 are cancerous labels (ductal carcinoma in situ and invasive ductal carcinoma in situ.) The individual patients are split up into three sets: train, development, and evaluation. Of the 74 cancerous patients, 20 were allotted for both the development and evaluation sets, while the remain 34 were allotted for train. The remaining 222 patients were split up to preserve the overall distribution of labels within the corpus. This was done in hope of creating control sets for comparable studies. Overall, the development and evaluation sets each have 80 patients, while the training set has 136 patients. In a related component of this project, slides from the Fox Chase Cancer Center (FCCC) Biosample Repository (https://www.foxchase.org/research/facilities/genetic-research-facilities/biosample-repository -facility) are being digitized in addition to slides provided by Temple University Hospital. This data includes 18 different types of tissue including approximately 38.5% urinary tissue and 16.5% gynecological tissue. These slides and the metadata provided with them are already anonymized and include diagnoses in a spreadsheet with sample and patient ID. We plan to release over 13,000 unannotated slides from the FCCC Corpus simultaneously with v1.0.0 of TUDP. Details of this release will also be discussed in this poster. Few digitally annotated databases of pathology samples like TUDP exist due to the extensive data collection and processing required. The breast corpus subset should be released by November 2021. By December 2021 we should also release the unannotated FCCC data. We are currently annotating urinary tract data as well. We expect to release about 5,600 processed TUH slides in this subset. We have an additional 53,000 unprocessed TUH slides digitized. Corpora of this size will stimulate the development of a new generation of deep learning technology. In clinical settings where resources are limited, an assistive diagnoses model could support pathologists’ workload and even help prioritize suspected cancerous cases. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This material is supported by the National Science Foundation under grants nos. CNS-1726188 and 1925494. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation. REFERENCES [1] N. Shawki et al., “The Temple University Digital Pathology Corpus,” 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 City, New York, USA: Springer, 2020, pp. 67 104. https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783030368432. [2] J. Picone, T. Farkas, I. Obeid, and Y. Persidsky, “MRI: High Performance Digital Pathology Using Big Data and Machine Learning.” Major Research Instrumentation (MRI), Division of Computer and Network Systems, Award No. 1726188, January 1, 2018 – December 31, 2021. https://www. isip.piconepress.com/projects/nsf_dpath/. [3] A. Gulati et al., “Conformer: Convolution-augmented Transformer for Speech Recognition,” in Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the International Speech Communication Association (INTERSPEECH), 2020, pp. 5036-5040. https://doi.org/10.21437/interspeech.2020-3015. [4] C.-J. Wu et al., “Machine Learning at Facebook: Understanding Inference at the Edge,” in Proceedings of the IEEE International Symposium on High Performance Computer Architecture (HPCA), 2019, pp. 331–344. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8675201. [5] I. Caswell and B. Liang, “Recent Advances in Google Translate,” Google AI Blog: The latest from Google Research, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://ai.googleblog.com/2020/06/recent-advances-in-google-translate.html. [Accessed: 01-Aug-2021]. [6] V. Khalkhali, N. Shawki, V. Shah, M. Golmohammadi, I. Obeid, and J. Picone, “Low Latency Real-Time Seizure Detection Using Transfer Deep Learning,” in Proceedings of the IEEE Signal Processing in Medicine and Biology Symposium (SPMB), 2021, pp. 1 7. https://www.isip. piconepress.com/publications/conference_proceedings/2021/ieee_spmb/eeg_transfer_learning/. [7] J. Picone, T. Farkas, I. Obeid, and Y. Persidsky, “MRI: High Performance Digital Pathology Using Big Data and Machine Learning,” Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA, 2020. https://www.isip.piconepress.com/publications/reports/2020/nsf/mri_dpath/. [8] I. Hunt, S. Husain, J. Simons, I. Obeid, and J. Picone, “Recent Advances in the Temple University Digital Pathology Corpus,” in Proceedings of the IEEE Signal Processing in Medicine and Biology Symposium (SPMB), 2019, pp. 1–4. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9037859. [9] A. P. Martinez, C. Cohen, K. Z. Hanley, and X. (Bill) Li, “Estrogen Receptor and Cytokeratin 5 Are Reliable Markers to Separate Usual Ductal Hyperplasia From Atypical Ductal Hyperplasia and Low-Grade Ductal Carcinoma In Situ,” Arch. Pathol. Lab. Med., vol. 140, no. 7, pp. 686–689, Apr. 2016. https://doi.org/10.5858/arpa.2015-0238-OA. 

   more » « less
5. Willingness to delay charging of electric vehicles

   Daziano, R.A. ( July 2020 , 25th Annual Conference of the European Association Environmental and Resource Economists)

   null (Ed.)

   Electrification of vehicles is becoming one of the main avenues for decarbonization of the transportation market. To reduce stress on the energy grid, large-scale charging will require optimal scheduling of when electricity is delivered to vehicles. Coordinated electric-vehicle charging can produce optimal, flattened loads that would improve reliability of the power system as well as reduce system costs and emissions. However, a challenge for successful introduction of coordinated deadline-scheduling of residential charging comes from the demand side: customers would need to be willing both to defer charging their vehicles and to accept less than a 100% target for battery charge. Within a coordinated electric-vehicle charging pilot run by the local utility in upstate New York, this study analyzes the necessary incentives for customers to accept giving up control of when charging of their vehicles takes place. Using data from a choice experiment implemented in an online survey of electric-vehicle owners and lessees in upstate New York (N=462), we make inference on the willingness to pay for features of hypothetical coordinated electric-vehicle charging programs. To address unobserved preference heterogeneity, we apply Variational Bayes (VB) inference to a mixed logit model. Stochastic variational inference has recently emerged as a fast and computationally-efficient alternative to Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) methods for scalable Bayesian estimation of discrete choice models. Our results show that individuals negatively perceive the duration of the timeframe in which the energy provider would be allowed to defer charging, even though both the desired target for battery charge and deadline would be respected. This negative monetary valuation is evidenced by an expected average reduction in the annual fee of joining the charging program of $2.64 per hour of control yielded to the energy provider. Our results also provide evidence of substantial heterogeneity in preferences. For example, the 25% quantile of the posterior distribution of the mean of the willingness to accept an additional hour of control yielded to the utility is $5.16. However, the negative valuation of the timeframe for deferring charging is compensated by positive valuation of emission savings coming from switching charging to periods of the day with a higher proportion of generation from renewable sources. Customers also positively valued discounts in the price of energy delivery. 

   more » « less