Abdel Aziz Taha

Lena Maier-Hein, Annika Reinke, Patrick Godau et al. · utoronto

Increasing evidence shows that flaws in machine learning (ML) algorithm validation are an underestimated global problem. Particularly in automatic biomedical image analysis, chosen performance metrics often do not reflect the domain interest, thus failing to adequately measure scientific progress and hindering translation of ML techniques into practice. To overcome this, our large international expert consortium created Metrics Reloaded, a comprehensive framework guiding researchers in the problem-aware selection of metrics. Following the convergence of ML methodology across application domains, Metrics Reloaded fosters the convergence of validation methodology. The framework was developed in a multi-stage Delphi process and is based on the novel concept of a problem fingerprint - a structured representation of the given problem that captures all aspects that are relevant for metric selection, from the domain interest to the properties of the target structure(s), data set and algorithm output. Based on the problem fingerprint, users are guided through the process of choosing and applying appropriate validation metrics while being made aware of potential pitfalls. Metrics Reloaded targets image analysis problems that can be interpreted as a classification task at image, object or pixel level, namely image-level classification, object detection, semantic segmentation, and instance segmentation tasks. To improve the user experience, we implemented the framework in the Metrics Reloaded online tool, which also provides a point of access to explore weaknesses, strengths and specific recommendations for the most common validation metrics. The broad applicability of our framework across domains is demonstrated by an instantiation for various biological and medical image analysis use cases.

Annika Reinke, Minu D. Tizabi, Michael Baumgartner et al.

Validation metrics are key for the reliable tracking of scientific progress and for bridging the current chasm between artificial intelligence (AI) research and its translation into practice. However, increasing evidence shows that particularly in image analysis, metrics are often chosen inadequately in relation to the underlying research problem. This could be attributed to a lack of accessibility of metric-related knowledge: While taking into account the individual strengths, weaknesses, and limitations of validation metrics is a critical prerequisite to making educated choices, the relevant knowledge is currently scattered and poorly accessible to individual researchers. Based on a multi-stage Delphi process conducted by a multidisciplinary expert consortium as well as extensive community feedback, the present work provides the first reliable and comprehensive common point of access to information on pitfalls related to validation metrics in image analysis. Focusing on biomedical image analysis but with the potential of transfer to other fields, the addressed pitfalls generalize across application domains and are categorized according to a newly created, domain-agnostic taxonomy. To facilitate comprehension, illustrations and specific examples accompany each pitfall. As a structured body of information accessible to researchers of all levels of expertise, this work enhances global comprehension of a key topic in image analysis validation.

Abdel Aziz Taha, Leonhard Hennig, Petr Knoth

One of the most common problems preventing the application of prediction models in the real world is lack of generalization: The accuracy of models, measured in the benchmark does repeat itself on future data, e.g. in the settings of real business. There is relatively little methods exist that estimate the confidence of prediction models. In this paper, we propose novel methods that, given a neural network classification model, estimate uncertainty of particular predictions generated by this model. Furthermore, we propose a method that, given a model and a confidence level, calculates a threshold that separates prediction generated by this model into two subsets, one of them meets the given confidence level. In contrast to other methods, the proposed methods do not require any changes on existing neural networks, because they simply build on the output logit layer of a common neural network. In particular, the methods infer the confidence of a particular prediction based on the distribution of the logit values corresponding to this prediction. The proposed methods constitute a tool that is recommended for filtering predictions in the process of knowledge extraction, e.g. based on web scrapping, where predictions subsets are identified that maximize the precision on cost of the recall, which is less important due to the availability of data. The method has been tested on different tasks including relation extraction, named entity recognition and image classification to show the significant increase of accuracy achieved.

Orhun Utku Aydin, Abdel Aziz Taha, Adam Hilbert et al.

Average Hausdorff Distance (AVD) is a widely used performance measure to calculate the distance between two point sets. In medical image segmentation, AVD is used to compare ground truth images with segmentation results allowing their ranking. We identified, however, a ranking bias of AVD making it less suitable for segmentation ranking. To mitigate this bias, we present a modified calculation of AVD that we have coined balanced AVD (bAVD). To simulate segmentations for ranking, we manually created non-overlapping segmentation errors common in cerebral vessel segmentation as our use-case. Adding the created errors consecutively and randomly to the ground truth, we created sets of simulated segmentations with increasing number of errors. Each set of simulated segmentations was ranked using AVD and bAVD. We calculated the Kendall-rank-correlation-coefficient between the segmentation ranking and the number of errors in each simulated segmentation. The rankings produced by bAVD had a significantly higher average correlation (0.969) than those of AVD (0.847). In 200 total rankings, bAVD misranked 52 and AVD misranked 179 segmentations. Our proposed evaluation measure, bAVD, alleviates AVDs ranking bias making it more suitable for rankings and quality assessment of segmentations.