MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387350718 · doi:10.1109/tap.2023.3318830

Autoencoder-Augmented Machine-Learning-Based Uncertainty Quantification for Electromagnetic Imaging

2023· article· en· W4387350718 on OpenAlexafffund
Keeley Narendra, Ben Martin, Colin Gilmore, Ian Jeffrey

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMicrowave Imaging and Scattering Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsAutoencoderComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceConvolutional neural networkIterative reconstructionMachine learningUncertainty quantificationDropout (neural networks)Artificial neural networkInverse problemBayesian probabilityDeep learningBayesian inferenceInferenceMonte Carlo methodImage qualityPattern recognition (psychology)Image (mathematics)MathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Uncertainty quantification of machine learning (ML) predictions is of key importance for the wide-spread adoption of ML-enabled electromagnetic imaging. As ML inference is a predictive process, providing a best (most likely) guess, supplementing that prediction with quantitative uncertainty can help to avoid costly errors when interpreting the output of a network. In this work, we present a novel two-output-branch neural network architecture that combines the Monte-Carlo Dropout Bayesian Convolutional Neural Network (BCNN) with an autoencoder (AE) to solve the data-to-image inverse problem. The inclusion of the autoencoder branch complements the predicted uncertainty image from the BCNN with a reconstruction of the network input. The data reconstruction (AE) path provides the user with additional information on the quality of the reconstruction, as a failed data reconstruction may be indicative of an out-of-range input, warranting further investigation.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.943
Threshold uncertainty score0.592

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.216 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Antennas and PropagationSame topicMicrowave Imaging and Scattering AnalysisFrench-language works237,207