SearcharxivSearch

arXiv · 2009.05094

Why I'm not Answering: Understanding Determinants of Classification of an Abstaining Classifier for Cancer Pathology Reports

Abstract

Safe deployment of deep learning systems in critical real world applications requires models to make very few mistakes, and only under predictable circumstances. In this work, we address this problem using an abstaining classifier that is tuned to have $>$95% accuracy, and then identify the determinants of abstention using LIME. Essentially, we are training our model to learn the attributes of pathology reports that are likely to lead to incorrect classifications, albeit at the cost of reduced sensitivity. We demonstrate an abstaining classifier in a multitask setting for classifying cancer pathology reports from the NCI SEER cancer registries on six tasks of interest. For these tasks, we reduce the classification error rate by factors of 2--5 by abstaining on 25--45% of the reports. For the specific task of classifying cancer site, we are able to identify metastasis, reports involving lymph nodes, and discussion of multiple cancer sites as responsible for many of the classification mistakes, and observe that the extent and types of mistakes vary systematically with cancer site (e.g., breast, lung, and prostate). When combining across three of the tasks, our model classifies 50% of the reports with an accuracy greater than 95% for three of the six tasks\edit, and greater than 85% for all six tasks on the retained samples. Furthermore, we show that LIME provides a better determinant of classification than measures of word occurrence alone. By combining a deep abstaining classifier with feature identification using LIME, we are able to identify concepts responsible for both correctness and abstention when classifying cancer sites from pathology reports. The improvement of LIME over keyword searches is statistically significant, presumably because words are assessed in context and have been identified as a local determinant of classification.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Sayera Dhaubhadel, Jamaludin Mohd-Yusof, Kumkum Ganguly, Gopinath Chennupati, Sunil Thulasidasan, Nicolas W. Hengartner, Brent J. Mumphrey, Eric B. Durbin, Jennifer A. Doherty, Mireille Lemieux, Noah Schaefferkoetter, Georgia Tourassi, Linda Coyle, Lynne Penberthy, Benjamin H. McMahon, Tanmoy Bhattacharya. 2020-09-10. Why I'm not Answering: Understanding Determinants of Classification of an Abstaining Classifier for Cancer Pathology Reports. https://arxiv.org/abs/2009.05094

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

AUC Maximization from Biased Positive-unlabeled Data with Confidence

Maximizing the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) is a standard approach to imbalanced binary classification. Although positive and negative data are required for maximizing the AUC, negative data are often difficult to collect in some real-world applications due to privacy concerns or the need for specialized expertise to annotate them. Thus, AUC maximization from positive and unlabeled (PU) data has been attracting attention. Existing methods assume that labeled positive data are unbiased samples from the true positive distribution. However, this ideal assumption is often violated in practice. In this paper, we propose a method to maximize the AUC from biased PU data. To address the bias, our key idea is to exploit {\it confidence}, i.e., the probability that an instance is positive, associated with the small number of labeled positive data. We derive an estimator of the AUC risk using biased PU data with confidence, enabling AUC maximization under such bias. We further show that the rewritten AUC risk induces a Bayes-optimal AUC ranking even when the available confidence is any strictly increasing transformation of the true posterior probability. We experimentally show the effectiveness of our method on eight real-world datasets.

cs.LG

Measuring the Value of World-Model Updates: A Counterfactual Utility Protocol for Continual Adaptation

Continual world models must decide whether new data justify changing the model. Fixed replay schedules and prediction-error triggers specify when to update, but neither reveals the value of an individual update: one deployment run cannot show how the same model would have performed at that moment had it held its parameters. We introduce the fork ledger, which branches a deployment stream at pre-registered decision points into matched update and hold continuations under common random numbers. It evaluates both continuations on the same episodes and records $\Delta R = R_{\mathrm{update}} - R_{\mathrm{hold}}$. Always applying one fixed update mechanism lowers return on all three simulated control tasks: CartPole ($-144.0$; checkpoint-bootstrap $95\%$ CI $[-185.4,-116.1]$, against a converged return near $650$), Walker ($-82.8$; $[-101.1,-61.7]$) and Cheetah ($-18.6$; $[-29.0,-6.6]$). Divergence is an outcome of applying the update, so the estimand counts every attempted fork; restricted to the $693$ of $720$ that did not collapse, CartPole and Walker are unchanged in sign ($-113.4$ and $-82.1$) and Cheetah becomes unresolved ($-3.9$; $[-17.5,+13.0]$). The task is the unit of inference: each contributes $240$ attempted forks over five pretrained checkpoints crossed with two drift directions. The ledger makes counterfactual utility observable for a fixed mechanism, allowing triggers to be judged by the updates they select rather than by surprise detection alone.

cs.LG

When More Is Not Better: Component Anti-Synergy in a P300 Speller

P300 brain-computer interface (BCI) spellers can provide hands-free communication for people with severe motor impairments. Modern pipelines combine multiple individually promising components, often assuming that 'more-is-better'. We tested this assumption using a four-component full-factorial experiment varying the inclusion of Euclidean Alignment (EA), xDAWN spatial filtering, subject calibration, and language model priors on a public P300 dataset. Performance was evaluated using accuracy, repetitions, and information transfer rate (ITR) with mixed-effects models. Results show that the value of components is conditional rather than additive. Calibration was the strongest singular contributor, while EA compensated for its absence in zero-calibration settings. Adding independently useful components could also reduce performance, revealing component anti-synergy. Contrary to conventional wisdom, LM support was not universally beneficial: its effect depends strongly on the strength of the underlying EEG pipeline, while results from a larger LM showed a similar pattern. Together, these findings challenge maximal 'all-on' pipeline design and highlight the value of selecting spatial and language-support components according to the quality of available EEG evidence.

cs.LG