ENG
РУС
Search
Menu
About the Edition
Open Access Statement
Editorial Board
Editorial Policy
Editorial Ethics
Rules for peer-review
Rules for presentation of papers
Forms of Submitted Documents
Recommendations for the Design of References to Our Journal
Editorial Staff
Information for Subscribers
Summaries of the Issue
List of Authors
Issues
Publishers license agreement
Procedure of work with personal data
Publications
2024
2023
2022
2021
2020
2019
2018
2017
2016
2015
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
Editor-in-Chief

Nikiforov
Vladimir O.
D.Sc., Prof.
Partners













































doi: 10.17586/2226-1494-2021-21-6-951-961

Monte Carlo Concrete DropPath for epistemic uncertainty estimation in pollen images classification

N. E. Khanzhina


Read the full article  ';
Article in Russian

For citation:
Khanzhina N.E. Monte Carlo Concrete DropPath for epistemic uncertainty estimation in pollen images classification. Scientific and Technical Journal of Information Technologies, Mechanics and Optics, 2021, vol. 21, no. 6, pp. 951–961 (in Russian). doi: 10.17586/2226-1494-2021-21-6-951-961


Abstract
The paper presents the results of a new method for training the NASNet neural network called Monte Carlo Concrete DropPath for epistemic uncertainty estimation to classify pollen images. The developed method is compared with existing methods for epistemic uncertainty estimation. The method turns an arbitrary multipath neural network into a Bayesian one by sampling from the predictive distribution. The Monte Carlo method samples different masks of DropPath to estimate uncertainty. Moreover, the probability of DropPath is optimized using continuous relaxation. The proposed method was tested for the classification task on the state-of-the-art NASNet architecture. The method demonstrated advantages on the task of classifying pollen images. The classification accuracy increased for 13 pollen species of allergen plants by 0.73 % on average compared to the baseline NASNet, reaching 98.34 % by F1 measure. Furthermore, the method increased calibration and reduced the epistemic uncertainty of the model by two times compared to the NASNets ensemble. It is shown that continuous relaxation of the DropPath probability parameter increases the accuracy of problem solving and reduces the epistemic uncertainty of the model. These results contribute to the automation of aeropalinological monitoring to reduce the time of informing patients who suffer from pollinosis and hence to prevent allergy symptoms. The developed method can be applied to train a neural network for other computer vision tasks on any image dataset.

Keywords: Bayesian deep learning, variational inference, epistemic uncertainty, pollen recognition, image recognition, uncertainty estimation

Acknowledgements. The author would like to thank Maxim Kashirin, Maxim Petukhov, Natalia Minaeva, Larisa Novoselova, Georgiy Zamorin, Tatyana Polevaya, Andrey Filchenkov, Elena Zamyatina, Irina Kharisova and Yuliya Pinaeva for their great help and useful comments.

References
  1. WAO White Book on Allergy. Ed by R. Pawankar, G.W. Canonica, S.T. Holgate, R.F. Lockey, M.S. Blaiss. USA, World Allergy Organization, 2013.
  2. Bousquet P.J., Chinn S., Janson C., Kogevinas M., Burney P., Jarvis D.  Geographical variation in the prevalence of positive skin tests to environmental aeroallergens in the European Community Respiratory Health Survey I. Allergy, 2007, vol. 62, no. 3, pp. 301–309. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1398-9995.2006.01293.x
  3. Eigenmann P.A., Eigenmann P.A., Atanaskovic-Markovic M., O'B Hourihane J., Lack G., Lau S., Matricardi P.M., Muraro A., Namazova Baranova L., Nieto A., Papadopoulos N.G., Réthy L.A., Roberts G., Rudzeviciene O., Wahn U., Wickman M., Høst A. Testing children for allergies: why, how, who and when: an updated statement of the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) Section on Pediatrics and the EAACI‐Clemens von Pirquet Foundation. Pediatric Allergy and Immunology, 2013, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 195–209. https://doi.org/10.1111/pai.12066
  4. Bousquet J., Schunemann H.J., Fonseca J., Samolinski B. et al. MACVIA‐ARIA Sentinel NetworK for allergic rhinitis (MASK‐rhinitis): the new generation guideline implementation. Allergy, 2015, vol. 70, no. 11, pp. 1372–1392. https://doi.org/10.1111/all.12686
  5. Chikhladze M.V., Khachapuridze D.R., Sepiashvili R.I. The use of the Burkhard Pollen Trap to study the aeroecological profile in Georgia. International Journal on Immunorehabilitation, 2009, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 200b–200b.
  6. Kishikawa R., Sahashi N., Saitoh A., Kotoh E., Shimoda T., Shoji S., Akiyama K., Nishima S. Japanese cedar airborne pollen monitoring by Durham’s and burkard samplers in Japan-estimation of the usefulness of Durham’s sampler on Japanese cedar pollinosis. Global Environmental Research, 2009, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 55–62.
  7. Puc M., Kotrych D., Lipiec A., Rapiejko P., Siergiejko G. Birch pollen grains without cytoplasmic content in the air of Szczecin and Bialystok. Alergoprofil, 2016, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 101–105.
  8. Piotrowska-Weryszko K., Weryszko-Chmielewska E., Rapiejko P., Rapiejko A., Malkiewicz M., Myszkowska D., Sulborska A., Żuraw B., Chłopek K., Voloshchuk K. Mugwort pollen season in southern Poland and Lviv (Ukraine) in 2015. Alergoprofil, 2016, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 26–30.
  9. Giorato M., Bordin A., Gemignani C., Turatello F., Marcer G. Airborne pollen in Padua (NE-Italy): A comparison between two pollen samplers. Aerobiologia, 2003, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 129–131. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024405624565
  10. Allergenic Pollen: A Review of the Production, Release, Distribution and Health Impacts. Ed. by M. Sofiev, K.C. Bergmann. Springer, 2012, 252 p.
  11. Novoselova L.V., Minaeva N. Pollen monitoring in Perm Krai (Russia)-experience of 6 years. Acta Agrobotanica, 2015, vol. 68, no. 4, pp. 343–348. https://doi.org/10.5586/aa.2015.042
  12. D'Amato G., Cecchi L., Liccardi G. Thunderstorm-related asthma: not only grass pollen and spores. Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, 2008, vol. 121, no. 2, pp. 537–358. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaci.2007.10.046
  13. Sikoparija B., Skjøth C.A., Celenk S. et al. Spatial and temporal variations in airborne Ambrosia pollen in Europe. Aerobiologia, 2017, vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 181–189. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10453-016-9463-1
  14. Pfaar O., Bastl K., Berger U., Buters J., Calderon M.A., Clot B., Darsow U., Demoly P., Durham S.R., Gala’n C., Gehrig R., Gerth van Wijk R., Jacobsen L., Klimek L., Sofiev M., Thibaudon M., Bergmann K.C. Definition von Pollenexpositionszeiten für klinische Studien zur Allergen-Immuntherapie bei polleninduzierter Rhinokonjunktivitis - ein EAACI-Positionspapier. Allergologie, 2018, vol. 41, no. 9, pp. 386–389. https://doi.org/10.5414/ALX02053
  15. Holt K.A., Bennett K.D. Principles and methods for automated palynology. New Phytologist, 2014, vol. 203, no. 3, pp. 735–742. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.12848
  16. Flenley J.R. The problem of pollen recognition. Problems in Picture Interpretation. Ed by M.B. Clowes, J.P. Penny. CSIRO, Canberra, 1968, pp. 141–145.
  17. Boucher A., Hidalgo P.J., Thonnat M., Belmonte J., Galan C., Bonton P., Tomczak R. Development of a semi-automatic system for pollen recognition. Aerobiologia, 2002, vol. 18, no. 3-4, pp. 195–201. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021322813565
  18. Chen C., Hendriks E.A., Duin R.P.W., Reiber J.H.C., Hiemstra P.S., De Weger L.A., Stoel B.C. Feasibility study on automated recognition of allergenic pollen: grass, birch and mugwort. Aerobiologia, 2006, vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 275–284. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10453-006-9040-0
  19. Ronneberger O., Schultz E., Burkhardt H. Automated pollen recognition using 3D volume images from fluorescence microscopy. Aerobiologia, 2002, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 107–115. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020623724584
  20. Chica M. Authentication of bee pollen grains in bright‐field microscopy by combining one‐class classification techniques and image processing. Microscopy Research and Technique, 2012, vol. 75, no. 11, pp. 1475–1485. https://doi.org/10.1002/jemt.22091
  21. Chudyk C., Castaneda H., Leger R., Yahiaoui I., Boochs F. Development of an automatic pollen classification system using shape, texture and aperture features. CEUR Workshop Proceedings, 2015, vol. 1458, pp. 65–74.
  22. Khanzhina N., Putin E. Pollen recognition for allergy and asthma management using gist features. Communications in Computer and Information Science, 2016, vol. 674, pp. 515–525. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-49700-6_51
  23. Khanzhina N., Putin E., Filchenkov A., Zamyatina E. Pollen grain recognition using convolutional neural network. Proc. of the 26th European Symposium on Artificial Neural Networks, Computational Intelligence and Machine Learning (ESANN), 2018, pp. 409–414.
  24. Krizhevsky A., Sutskever I., Hinton G.E. ImageNet classification with deep convolutional neural networks. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2012, vol. 2, pp. 1097–1105.
  25. Daood A., Ribeiro E., Bush M. Classifying pollen using robust sequence alignment of sparse Z-stack volumes. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2016, vol. 10072, pp. 331–340. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-50835-1_31
  26. Sevillano V., Aznarte J.L. Improving classification of pollen grain images of the POLEN23E dataset through three different applications of deep learning convolutional neural networks. PloS ONE, 2018, vol. 13, no. 9, pp. e0201807. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0201807
  27. Sevillano V., Holt K., Aznarte J.L. Precise automatic classification of 46 different pollen types with convolutional neural networks. Plos ONE, 2020, vol. 15, no. 6, pp. e0229751. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0229751
  28. de Geus A.R., Barcelos C.A.Z., Batista M.A., da Silva S.F. Large-scale pollen recognition with deep learning. Proc. of the 27th European Signal Processing Conference (EUSIPCO), 2019, pp. 1–5. https://doi.org/10.23919/EUSIPCO.2019.8902735
  29. Gallardo-Caballero R., García-Orellana C.J., García-Manso A., González-Velasco H.M., Tormo-Molina R., Macías-Macías M. Precise pollen grain detection in bright field microscopy using deep learning techniques. Sensors, 2019, vol. 19, no. 16, pp. 3583. https://doi.org/10.3390/s19163583
  30. Simonyan K., Zisserman A. Very deep convolutional networks for large-scale image recognition. Proc. of the 3rd International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR, 2015.
  31. Huang G., Liu Z., Van Der Maaten L., Weinberger K.Q. Densely connected convolutional networks. Proc. of the 30th IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2017, pp. 2261–2269. https://doi.org/10.1109/CVPR.2017.243
  32. Menad H., Ben-Naoum F., Amine A. Deep convolutional neural network for pollen grains classification. CEUR Workshop Proceedings, 2019, vol. 2351.
  33. Schiele J., Rabe F., Schmitt M., Glaser M., Häring F., Brunner J.O., Bauer B., Schuller B., Traidl-Hoffmann C., Damialis A. Automated classification of airborne pollen using neural networks. Proc. of the 41st Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC), 2019, pp. 4474–4478. https://doi.org/10.1109/EMBC.2019.8856910
  34. Astolfi G., Gonçalves A.B., Menezes G.V., Borges F.S.B., Astolfi A.C.M.N., Matsubara E.T., Alvarez M., Pistori H. POLLEN73S: An image dataset for pollen grains classification. Ecological Informatics, 2020, vol. 60, pp. 101165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoinf.2020.101165
  35. Gonçalves A.B., Souza J.S., Da Silva G.G., Cereda M.P., Pott A., Naka M.H., Pistori H. Feature extraction and machine learning for the classification of Brazilian Savannah pollen grains. PloS ONE, 2016, vol. 11, no. 6, pp. e0157044. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0157044
  36. Kendall A., Gal Y. What uncertainties do we need in bayesian deep learning for computer vision? Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2017, vol. 30, pp. 5574–5584.
  37. Gal Y., Ghahramani Z. Dropout as a bayesian approximation: Representing model uncertainty in deep learning. Proc. of the 33rd International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML),2016, pp. 1651–1660.
  38. Ghiasi G., Lin T.Y., Le Q.V. DropBlock: A regularization method for convolutional networks. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2018, vol. 31, pp. 10727–10737.
  39. Izmailov P., Podoprikhin D., Garipov T., Vetrov D., Wilson A.G.Averaging weights leads to wider optima and better generalization. Proc. of the 34th Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (UAI). Vol. 2. 2018, pp. 876–885.
  40. Tompson J., Goroshin R., Jain A., LeCun Y., Bregler C. Efficient object localization using convolutional networks. Proc. of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2015, pp. 648–656. https://doi.org/10.1109/CVPR.2015.7298664
  41. Larsson G., Maire M., Shakhnarovich G. Fractalnet: Ultra-deep neural networks without residuals. Proc. of the 5th International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2017.
  42. Zoph B., Vasudevan V., Shlens J., Le Q.V. Learning transferable architectures for scalable image recognition. Proc. of the 31st Meeting of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2018, pp. 8697–8710. https://doi.org/10.1109/CVPR.2018.00907
  43. Zhang Z., Dalca A.V., Sabuncu M.R. Confidence calibration for convolutional neural networks using structured dropout. arXiv.org, 2019, arXiv:1906.09551.
  44. Gal Y., Hron J., Kendall A. Concrete dropout. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2017, vol. 30, pp. 3582–3591.
  45. Maddison C.J., Mnih A., Teh Y.W. The concrete distribution: A continuous relaxation of discrete random variables. Proc. of the 5th International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2017.
  46. Szegedy C., Ioffe S., Vanhoucke V., Alemi A.A. Inception-v4, inception-resnet and the impact of residual connections on learning. Proc. of the 31st AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 2017, pp. 4278–4284.
  47. Xie S., Girshick R., Dollár P., Tu Z., He K. Aggregated residual transformations for deep neural networks. Proc. of the 30th IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2017, pp. 5987–5995. https://doi.org/10.1109/CVPR.2017.634
  48. Khanzhina N., Kashirin M., Filchenkov A. Monte Carlo concrete DropPath for epistemic uncertainty estimation in brain tumor segmentation. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2021, vol. 12959, pp. 64–74. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-87735-4_7
  49. Karras T., Laine S., Aila T. A style-based generator architecture for generative adversarial networks. Proc. of the 32nd IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2019, pp. 4396–4405. https://doi.org/10.1109/CVPR.2019.00453
  50. Karras T., Aila T., Laine S., Lehtinen J.Progressive growing of GANs for improved quality, stability, and variation. Proc. of the 6th International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2018.
  51. Huang X., Belongie S. Arbitrary style transfer in real-time with adaptive instance normalization. Proc. of the 16th IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), 2017, pp. 1510–1519. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCV.2017.167
  52. Loquercio A., Segu M., Scaramuzza D. A general framework for uncertainty estimation in deep learning. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 2020, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 3153–3160. https://doi.os in Neural Information Processing Systems, 2019, vol. 32.
  53. Naeini M.P., Cooper G., Hauskrecht M. Obtaining well calibrated probabilities using bayesian binning. Proc. of the 29th AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 2015, pp. 2901–2907.
  54. Ashukha A., Lyzhov A., Molchanov D., Vetrov D. Pitfalls of in-domain uncertainty estimation and ensembling in deep learning. arXiv.org, 2020, arXiv:2002.06470.


Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License
Copyright 2001-2024 ©
Scientific and Technical Journal
of Information Technologies, Mechanics and Optics.
All rights reserved.

Яндекс.Метрика