More Like this

1. Weakly Supervised Spatial Deep Learning for Earth Image Segmentation Based on Imperfect Polyline Labels

   https://doi.org/10.1145/3480970  

   Jiang, Zhe ; He, Wenchong ; Kirby, Marcus Stephen ; Sainju, Arpan Man ; Wang, Shaowen ; Stanislawski, Lawrence V. ; Shavers, Ethan J. ; Usery, E. Lynn ( April 2022 , ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology)

   In recent years, deep learning has achieved tremendous success in image segmentation for computer vision applications. The performance of these models heavily relies on the availability of large-scale high-quality training labels (e.g., PASCAL VOC 2012). Unfortunately, such large-scale high-quality training data are often unavailable in many real-world spatial or spatiotemporal problems in earth science and remote sensing (e.g., mapping the nationwide river streams for water resource management). Although extensive efforts have been made to reduce the reliance on labeled data (e.g., semi-supervised or unsupervised learning, few-shot learning), the complex nature of geographic data such as spatial heterogeneity still requires sufficient training labels when transferring a pre-trained model from one region to another. On the other hand, it is often much easier to collect lower-quality training labels with imperfect alignment with earth imagery pixels (e.g., through interpreting coarse imagery by non-expert volunteers). However, directly training a deep neural network on imperfect labels with geometric annotation errors could significantly impact model performance. Existing research that overcomes imperfect training labels either focuses on errors in label class semantics or characterizes label location errors at the pixel level. These methods do not fully incorporate the geometric properties of label location errors in the vectormore »representation. To fill the gap, this article proposes a weakly supervised learning framework to simultaneously update deep learning model parameters and infer hidden true vector label locations. Specifically, we model label location errors in the vector representation to partially reserve geometric properties (e.g., spatial contiguity within line segments). Evaluations on real-world datasets in the National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) refinement application illustrate that the proposed framework outperforms baseline methods in classification accuracy.« less
2. SocialAnnotator: Annotator Selection by Exploiting Social Relationships in Activity Recognition

   Hossain, S ; Roy, N. ( October 2018 , Proceedings of the IEEE AAAI 2018 Fall Symposium, Oct 2018)

   Precise and eloquent label information is fundamental for interpreting the underlying data distributions distinctively and training of supervised and semi-supervised learning models adequately. But obtaining large amount of labeled data demands substantial manual effort. This obligation can be mitigated by acquiring labels of most informative data instances using Active Learning. However labels received from humans are not always reliable and poses the risk of introducing noisy class labels which will degrade the efficacy of a model instead of its improvement. In this paper, we address the problem of annotating sensor data instances of various Activities of Daily Living (ADLs) in smart home context. We exploit the interactions between the users and annotators in terms of relationships spanning across spatial and temporal space which accounts for an activity as well. We propose a novel annotator selection model SocialAnnotator which exploits the interactions between the users and annotators and rank the annotators based on their level of correspondence. We also introduce a novel approach to measure this correspondence distance using the spatial and temporal information of interactions, type of the relationships and activities. We validate our proposed SocialAnnotator framework in smart environments achieving ≈ 84% statistical confidence in data annotation
3. 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 notmore »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.« less
4. Machine Learning with Differentially Private Labels: Mechanisms and Frameworks

   https://doi.org/10.56553/popets-2022-0112  

   Tang, Xinyu ; Nasr, Milad ; Mahloujifar, Saeed ; Shejwalkar, Virat ; Song, Liwei ; Houmansadr, Amir ; Mittal, Prateek ( October 2022 , Proceedings on Privacy Enhancing Technologies)

   Label differential privacy is a relaxation of differential privacy for machine learning scenarios where the labels are the only sensitive information that needs to be protected in the training data. For example, imagine a survey from a participant in a university class about their vaccination status. Some attributes of the students are publicly available but their vaccination status is sensitive information and must remain private. Now if we want to train a model that predicts whether a student has received vaccination using only their public information, we can use label-DP. Recent works on label-DP use different ways of adding noise to the labels in order to obtain label-DP models. In this work, we present novel techniques for training models with label-DP guarantees by leveraging unsupervised learning and semi-supervised learning, enabling us to inject less noise while obtaining the same privacy, therefore achieving a better utility-privacy trade-off. We first introduce a framework that starts with an unsupervised classifier f0 and dataset D with noisy label set Y , reduces the noise in Y using f0 , and then trains a new model f using the less noisy dataset. Our noise reduction strategy uses the model f0 to remove the noisy labelsmore »that are incorrect with high probability. Then we use semi-supervised learning to train a model using the remaining labels. We instantiate this framework with multiple ways of obtaining the noisy labels and also the base classifier. As an alternative way to reduce the noise, we explore the effect of using unsupervised learning: we only add noise to a majority voting step for associating the learned clusters with a cluster label (as opposed to adding noise to individual labels); the reduced sensitivity enables us to add less noise. Our experiments show that these techniques can significantly outperform the prior works on label-DP.« less
5. Predicting Geothermal Favorability in the Western United States by Using Machine Learning: Addressing Challenges and Developing Solutions

   Mordensky, Stanley P. ; Lipor, John J. ; DeAngelo, J. ; Burns, Erick R. ; Lindsey, Cary R. ( February 2022 , Proceedings: Forty Seventh Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering)

   Previous moderate- and high-temperature geothermal resource assessments of the western United States utilized weight-of-evidence and logistic regression methodstoestimateresourcefavorability,buttheseanalyses relied uponsomeexpert decisions.Whileexpert decisions can add confidence to aspects of the modeling process by ensuring only reasonable models are employed, expert decisions also introduce human bias into assessments. This bias presents a source of error that may affect the performance of the models and resulting resource estimates. Our study aims to reduce expert input through robust data-driven analyses and better-suited data science techniques, with the goals of saving time, reducing bias, and improving predictive ability. We present six favorability maps for geothermal resources in the western United States created using two strategies applied to three modern machine learning algorithms (logistic regression, support- vector machines, and XGBoost). To provide a direct comparison to previous assessments, we use the same input data as the 2008 U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) conventional moderate- to high-temperature geothermal resource assessment. The six new favorability maps required far less expert decision-making, but broadly agree with the previous assessment. Despite the fact that the 2008 assessment results employed linear methods, the non-linear machine learning algorithms (i.e., support-vector machines and XGBoost) produced greater agreement with the previous assessment than the linearmore »machine learning algorithm (i.e., logistic regression). It is not surprising that geothermal systems depend on non-linear combinations of features, and we postulate that the expert decisions during the 2008 assessment accounted for system non-linearities. Substantial challenges to applying machine learning algorithms to predict geothermal resource favorability include severe class imbalance (i.e., there are very few known geothermal systems compared to the large area considered), and while there are known geothermal systems (i.e., positive labels), all other sites have an unknown status (i.e., they are unlabeled), instead of receiving a negative label (i.e., the known/proven absence of a geothermal resource). We address both challenges through a custom undersampling strategy that can be used with any algorithm and then evaluated using F1 scores.« less