Reward Driven Image Analysis Workflow in Static and Active Learning
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The advent of electron microscopy has markedly expanded our capabilities to acquire atomically resolved images of complex material microstructures, producing vast datasets that transcend the limits of human vision [1]. This surge in data generation necessitates sophisticated analytical methodologies capable of not just processing this data, but more critically, of extracting significant insights into the material properties and mechanisms at play. This challenge is compounded by the vast array of possible analytical paths and the intricate tuning of parameters, making the identification of an optimal workflow a daunting task. The development of workflows that can interpret recorded data or analyze streaming data in active learning —be it images, spectra, or hyperspectral data—into human-understandable formats becomes imperative. Here we propose an approach based on the concept of a reward function, intricately linked to the experimental objectives and the broader context, yet quantifiable upon experiment completion. A comprehensive articulation of the workflow's sequential steps is illustrated in Figure 1. A key step is defining reward functions by human considering the analysis goal and what domain feature that he wants to observe. In the model scenario, the initial step involves the establishment of a reward function designed to identify atomic positions that closely approximate the ground truth, specifically, the number of atoms as detected by a deep convolutional neural network. Another reward function involves identifying the most effective clustering technique capable of closely approximating the stoichiometry of the target material. Once defined, these reward function allow optimization of the workflow, including both combinatorial analysis selection and continuous parameter optimization via Bayesian Optimization [2, 3], thereby ensuring the attainment of results that are both precise and aligned with the human-defined objectives. As an example, as presented in (Figure. 2) the workflow has been implemented using the Scikit-Optimize library to fine-tune the model's hyperparameters, ensuring that the clustering provided by the Gaussian Mixture Model (GMM) closely aligns with the YBa2Cu3Ox (YBCO) stoichiometry [4, 5]. The extension of reward-building workflows to accommodate more complex, multi-step optimization processes, along with the utilization of large language models for the probabilistic construction of reward functions, is discussed in (Figure 1, 3). Workflow of an image analysis framework contrasting traditional methods with a novel approach. The red pathways indicate the conventional process incorporating human insight at multiple stages for transformation, clustering, and dimensionality reduction. The green pathway represents an innovative method that integrates parameter optimization with a reward function to guide the workflow towards optimal output visualization and analysis. (A) A scatter plot illustrating the data clustered by the (GMM), utilizing Yttrium (Y), Barium (Ba), and Copper (Cu) atoms as the basis for clustering. (B) Predictions of YBCO stoichiometry through GMM clustering, guided by a predetermined reward function. (C) Predictions of YBCO stoichiometry through GMM clustering, informed by human insight and fine-tuning. (A) Atomic positions on a crystal lattice identified by the Laplacian of Gaussian method. Shows, (B) Scatter plot of data clustered by the Gaussian Mixture Model (GMM) based on only heavy (In this case Y, Ba) atoms, (C) the scattering structure of the clustered atoms on the HAADF image, (D) Structured representation of a VAE's latent space, visualized as a 2D grid of Gaussian distributions, (E) Clusters in VAE latent space delineated by a Gaussian Mixture Model (GMM). (F) Color-coded heat map displaying the activations within the latent space of a Variational Autoencoder (VAE).
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,005 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,016 | 0,007 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».