Search

We propose a procedure for the polarity assessment in reflection seismic data based on a Neural Network approach. The algorithm is based on a fully 1D approach, which does not require any input besides the seismic data since the necessary parameters are all automatically estimated. An added benefit is that the prediction has an associated probability, which automatically quantifies the reliability of the results. We tested the proposed procedure on synthetic and real reflection seismic data sets. The algorithm is able to correctly extract the seismic horizons also in case of complex conditions, such as along the flanks of salt domes, and is able to track polarity inversions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Vulnerability to adversarial attacks is one of the principal hurdles to the adoption of deep learning in safety-critical applications. Despite significant efforts, both practical and theoretical, training deep learning models robust to adversarial attacks is still an open problem. In this article, we analyse the geometry of adversarial attacks in the over-parameterized limit for Bayesian neural networks (BNNs). We show that, in the limit, vulnerability to gradient-based attacks arises as a result of degeneracy in the data distribution, i.e., when the data lie on a lower dimensional submanifold of the ambient space. As a direct consequence, we demonstrate that in this limit, BNN posteriors are robust to gradient-based adversarial attacks. Crucially, by relying on the convergence of infinitely-wide BNNs to Gaussian processes (GPs), we prove that, under certain relatively mild assumptions, the expected gradient of the loss with respect to the BNN posterior distribution is vanishing, even when each NN sampled from the BNN posterior does not have vanishing gradients. The experimental results on the MNIST, Fashion MNIST, and a synthetic dataset with BNNs trained with Hamiltonian Monte Carlo and variational inference support this line of arguments, empirically showing that BNNs can display both high accuracy on clean data and robustness to both gradient-based and gradient-free adversarial attacks.

Background: Machine learning (ML) methods to build prediction models starting from electrocardiogram (ECG) signals are an emerging research field. The aim of the present study is to investigate the performances of two ML approaches based on ECGs for the prediction of new-onset atrial fibrillation (AF), in terms of discrimination, calibration and sample size dependence., Methods: We trained two models to predict new-onset AF: a convolutional neural network (CNN), that takes as input the raw ECG signals, and an eXtreme Gradient Boosting model (XGB), that uses the signal's extracted features. A penalized logistic regression model (LR) was used as a benchmark. Discrimination was evaluated with the area under the ROC curve, while calibration with the integrated calibration index. We investigated the dependence of models' performances on the sample size and on class imbalance corrections introduced with random under-sampling., Results: CNN's discrimination was the most affected by the sample size, outperforming XGB and LR only around n = 10.000 observations. Calibration showed only a small dependence on the sample size for all the models considered. Balancing the training set with random undersampling did not improve discrimination in any of the models. Instead, the main effect of imbalance corrections was to worsen the models' calibration (for CNN, integrated calibration index from 0.014 [0.01, 0.018] to 0.17 [0.16, 0.19]). The sample size emerged as a fundamental point for developing the CNN model, especially in terms of discrimination (AUC = 0.75 [0.73, 0.77] when n = 10.000, AUC = 0.80 [0.79, 0.81] when n = 150.000). The effect of the sample size on the other two models was weaker. Imbalance corrections led to poorly calibrated models, for all the approaches considered, reducing the clinical utility of the models., Conclusions: Our results suggest that the choice of approach in the analysis of ECG should be based on the amount of data available, preferring more standard models for small datasets. Moreover, imbalance correction methods should be avoided when developing clinical prediction models, where calibration is crucial., (© 2023. The Author(s).)