PAC Bayesian Performance Guarantees for Deep (Stochastic) Networks in Medical Imaging
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Application of deep neural networks to medical imaging tasks has in some sense become commonplace. Still, a "thorn in the side" of the deep learning movement is the argument that deep networks are prone to overfitting and are thus unable to generalize well when datasets are small (as is common in medical imaging tasks). One way to bolster confidence is to provide mathematical guarantees, or bounds, on network performance after training which explicitly quantify the possibility of overfitting. In this work, we explore recent advances using the PAC-Bayesian framework to provide bounds on generalization error for large (stochastic) networks. While previous efforts focus on classification in larger natural image datasets (e.g., MNIST and CIFAR-10), we apply these techniques to both classification and segmentation in a smaller medical imagining dataset: the ISIC 2018 challenge set. We observe the resultant bounds are competitive compared to a simpler baseline, while also being more explainable and alleviating the need for holdout sets.
Key facts. Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 13 Oct 2026). Builds on 27 of its 56 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 12 Apr 2021.
Builds on
27 of 56 references.
References · 27
- 2015Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognitioncited by 51,950
- 2015U-Net: Convolutional Networks for Biomedical Image Segmentationcited by 19,656
- 2016V-Net: Fully Convolutional Neural Networks for Volumetric Medical Image Segmentationcited by 2,287
- 2016Understanding deep learning requires rethinking generalizationcited by 1,666
- 2016On Large-Batch Training for Deep Learning: Generalization Gap and Sharp Minimacited by 1,344
- 2019Skin Lesion Analysis Toward Melanoma Detection 2018: A Challenge Hosted by the International Skin Imaging Collaboration (ISIC)cited by 664
- 2017Exploring Generalization in Deep Learningcited by 596
- 2015Train faster, generalize better: Stability of stochastic gradient descentcited by 549
- 2017Computing Nonvacuous Generalization Bounds for Deep (Stochastic) Neural Networks with Many More Parameters than Training Datacited by 530
- 2019Fantastic Generalization Measures and Where to Find Themcited by 510
- 2016Entropy-SGD: Biasing Gradient Descent Into Wide Valleyscited by 358
- 2014In Search of the Real Inductive Bias: On the Role of Implicit Regularization in Deep Learningcited by 340
15 more
- 2017Nearly-tight VC-dimension and pseudodimension bounds for piecewise linear neural networkscited by 306
- 2019A Primer on PAC-Bayesian Learningcited by 132
- 2020Tighter risk certificates for neural networkscited by 112
- 2017Data-Dependent Stability of Stochastic Gradient Descentcited by 91
- 2017Generalization Bounds of SGLD for Non-convex Learning: Two Theoretical Viewpointscited by 82
- 2017Entropy-SGD optimizes the prior of a PAC-Bayes bound: Generalization properties of Entropy-SGD and data-dependent priorscited by 81
- 2020In Search of Robust Measures of Generalizationcited by 79
- 2020On the role of data in PAC-Bayes boundscited by 64
- 2015Risk Bounds for the Majority Vote: From a PAC-Bayesian Analysis to a Learning Algorithmcited by 50
- 2013A PAC-Bayesian Tutorial with A Dropout Boundcited by 43
- 2016Unreasonable Effectiveness of Learning Neural Networks: From Accessible States and Robust Ensembles to Basic Algorithmic Schemescited by 40
- 2015Subdominant Dense Clusters Allow for Simple Learning and High Computational Performance in Neural Networks with Discrete Synapsescited by 39
- 2019PAC-Bayes with Backpropcited by 36
- 2018Learning Gaussian Processes by Minimizing PAC-Bayesian Generalization Boundscited by 24
- 2018PAC-Bayes bounds for stable algorithms with instance-dependent priorscited by 21
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2022: 1; 2023: 1; 2024: 1.
3 papers.