Comparing representations of biological data learned with different AI paradigms, augmenting and cropping strategies
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Recent advances in computer vision and robotics enabled automated large-scale biological image analysis. Various machine learning approaches have been successfully applied to phenotypic profiling. However, it remains unclear how they compare in terms of biological feature extraction. In this study, we propose a simple CNN architecture and implement 4 different representation learning approaches. We train 16 deep learning setups on the 770k cancer cell images dataset under identical conditions, using different augmenting and cropping strategies. We compare the learned representations by evaluating multiple metrics for each of three downstream tasks: i) distance-based similarity analysis of known drugs, ii) classification of drugs versus controls, iii) clustering within cell lines. We also compare training times and memory usage. Among all tested setups, multi-crops and random augmentations generally improved performance across tasks, as expected. Strikingly, self-supervised (implicit contrastive learning) models showed competitive performance being up to 11 times faster to train. Self-supervised regularized learning required the most of memory and computation to deliver arguably the most informative features. We observe that no single combination of augmenting and cropping strategies consistently results in top performance across tasks and recommend prospective research directions.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 12 of its 30 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 7 Mar 2022.
Builds on
12 of 30 references.
References · 12
- 2020A Simple Framework for Contrastive Learning of Visual Representationscited by 12,049
- 2020Bootstrap your own latent: A new approach to self-supervised Learningcited by 4,750
- 2018UMAP: Uniform Manifold Approximation and Projection for Dimension Reductioncited by 2,898
- 2020Unsupervised Learning of Visual Features by Contrasting Cluster Assignmentscited by 2,857
- 2017Improved Training of Wasserstein GANscited by 2,235
- 2015Unsupervised Representation Learning with Deep Convolutional Generative Adversarial Networkscited by 2,054
- 2016Automatic chemical design using a data-driven continuous representation of moleculescited by 765
- 2020Data Efficient and Weakly Supervised Computational Pathology on Whole Slide Imagescited by 745
- 2017Unsupervised Learning for Cell-level Visual Representation in Histopathology Images with Generative Adversarial Networkscited by 17
- 2019Evaluation Metrics for Unsupervised Learning Algorithmscited by 16
- 2021Tune It or Don't Use It: Benchmarking Data-Efficient Image Classificationcited by 12
- 2017On denoising autoencoders trained to minimise binary cross-entropycited by 4
Built on by
Not cited yet.