More Like this

1. Simulator-Based Inference with WALDO: Confidence Regions by Leveraging Prediction Algorithms and Posterior Estimators for Inverse Problems

   Masserano, L. ; Dorigo, T. ; Izbicki, R. ; Kuusela, M. ; Lee, A. B. ( January 2023 , Proceedings of Machine Learning Research)

   Ruiz, F. ; Dy, J. ; Meent, J.-W. (Ed.)

   Prediction algorithms, such as deep neural networks (DNNs), are used in many domain sciences to directly estimate internal parameters of interest in simulator-based models, especially in settings where the observations include images or complex high-dimensional data. In parallel, modern neural density estimators, such as normalizing flows, are becoming increasingly popular for uncertainty quantification, especially when both parameters and observations are high-dimensional. However, parameter inference is an inverse problem and not a prediction task; thus, an open challenge is to construct conditionally valid and precise confidence regions, with a guaranteed probability of covering the true parameters of the data-generating process, no matter what the (unknown) parameter values are, and without relying on large-sample theory. Many simulator-based inference (SBI) methods are indeed known to produce biased or overly con- fident parameter regions, yielding misleading uncertainty estimates. This paper presents WALDO, a novel method to construct confidence regions with finite-sample conditional validity by leveraging prediction algorithms or posterior estimators that are currently widely adopted in SBI. WALDO reframes the well-known Wald test statistic, and uses a computationally efficient regression-based machinery for classical Neyman inversion of hypothesis tests. We apply our method to a recent high-energy physics problem, where prediction with DNNs has previously led to estimates with prediction bias. We also illustrate how our approach can correct overly confident posterior regions computed with normalizing flows. 

   more » « less
2. 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
3. Ensemble‐Based Experimental Design for Targeting Data Acquisition to Inform Climate Models

   https://doi.org/10.1029/2022MS002997  

   Dunbar, Oliver R. A. ; Howland, Michael F. ; Schneider, Tapio ; Stuart, Andrew M. ( September 2022 , Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems)

   Data required to calibrate uncertain general circulation model (GCM) parameterizations are often only available in limited regions or time periods, for example, observational data from field campaigns, or data generated in local high‐resolution simulations. This raises the question of where and when to acquire additional data to be maximally informative about parameterizations in a GCM. Here we construct a new ensemble‐based parallel algorithm to automatically target data acquisition to regions and times that maximize the uncertainty reduction, or information gain, about GCM parameters. The algorithm uses a Bayesian framework that exploits a quantified distribution of GCM parameters as a measure of uncertainty. This distribution is informed by time‐averaged climate statistics restricted to local regions and times. The algorithm is embedded in the recently developed calibrate‐emulate‐sample framework, which performs efficient model calibration and uncertainty quantification with onlymodel evaluations, compared withevaluations typically needed for traditional approaches to Bayesian calibration. We demonstrate the algorithm with an idealized GCM, with which we generate surrogates of local data. In this perfect‐model setting, we calibrate parameters and quantify uncertainties in a quasi‐equilibrium convection scheme in the GCM. We consider targeted data that are (a) localized in space for statistically stationary simulations, and (b) localized in space and time for seasonally varying simulations. In these proof‐of‐concept applications, the calculated information gain reflects the reduction in parametric uncertainty obtained from Bayesian inference when harnessing a targeted sample of data. The largest information gain typically, but not always, results from regions near the intertropical convergence zone.

    

   more » « less
4. Learning from monitoring networks: Few-large vs. many-small plots and multi-scale analysis

   https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2023.1114569  

   Tang, Becky ; Kamakura, Renata P. ; Barnett, David T. ; Clark, James S. ( April 2023 , Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution)

   In order to learn about broad scale ecological patterns, data from large-scale surveys must allow us to either estimate the correlations between the environment and an outcome and/or accurately predict ecological patterns. An important part of data collection is the sampling effort used to collect observations, which we decompose into two quantities: the number of observations or plots ( n ) and the per-observation/plot effort ( E ; e.g., area per plot). If we want to understand the relationships between predictors and a response variable, then lower model parameter uncertainty is desirable. If the goal is to predict a response variable, then lower prediction error is preferable. We aim to learn if and when aggregating data can help attain these goals. We find that a small sample size coupled with large observation effort coupled (few large) can yield better predictions when compared to a large number of observations with low observation effort (many small). We also show that the combination of the two values ( n and E ), rather than one alone, has an impact on parameter uncertainty. In an application to Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) data, we model the tree density of selected species at various amounts of aggregation using linear regression in order to compare the findings from simulated data to real data. The application supports the theoretical findings that increasing observational effort through aggregation can lead to improved predictions, conditional on the thoughtful aggregation of the observational plots. In particular, aggregations over extremely large and variable covariate space may lead to poor prediction and high parameter uncertainty. Analyses of large-range data can improve with aggregation, with implications for both model evaluation and sampling design: testing model prediction accuracy without an underlying knowledge of the datasets and the scale at which predictor variables operate can obscure meaningful results. 

   more » « less
5. GAN-DUF: Hierarchical Deep Generative Models for Design Under Free-Form Geometric Uncertainty

   https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4055898  

   Chen, Wei ; Lee, Doksoo ; Balogun, Oluwaseyi ; Chen, Wei ( January 2023 , Journal of Mechanical Design)

   Deep generative models have demonstrated effectiveness in learning compact and expressive design representations that significantly improve geometric design optimization. However, these models do not consider the uncertainty introduced by manufacturing or fabrication. The past work that quantifies such uncertainty often makes simplifying assumptions on geometric variations, while the “real-world,” “free-form” uncertainty and its impact on design performance are difficult to quantify due to the high dimensionality. To address this issue, we propose a generative adversarial network-based design under uncertainty framework (GAN-DUF), which contains a deep generative model that simultaneously learns a compact representation of nominal (ideal) designs and the conditional distribution of fabricated designs given any nominal design. This opens up new possibilities of (1) building a universal uncertainty quantification model compatible with both shape and topological designs, (2) modeling free-form geometric uncertainties without the need to make any assumptions on the distribution of geometric variability, and (3) allowing fast prediction of uncertainties for new nominal designs. We can combine the proposed deep generative model with robust design optimization or reliability-based design optimization for design under uncertainty. We demonstrated the framework on two real-world engineering design examples and showed its capability of finding the solution that possesses better performance after fabrication.

    

   more » « less