Daily Papers

A wide range of deep learning-based machine learning techniques are extensively applied to the design of high-entropy alloys (HEAs), yielding numerous valuable insights. Kolmogorov-Arnold Networks (KAN) is a recently developed architecture that aims to improve both the accuracy and interpretability of input features. In this work, we explore three different datasets for HEA design and demonstrate the application of KAN for both classification and regression models. In the first example, we use a KAN classification model to predict the probability of single-phase formation in high-entropy carbide ceramics based on various properties such as mixing enthalpy and valence electron concentration. In the second example, we employ a KAN regression model to predict the yield strength and ultimate tensile strength of HEAs based on their chemical composition and process conditions including annealing time, cold rolling percentage, and homogenization temperature. The third example involves a KAN classification model to determine whether a certain composition is an HEA or non-HEA, followed by a KAN regressor model to predict the bulk modulus of the identified HEA, aiming to identify HEAs with high bulk modulus. In all three examples, KAN either outperform or match the performance in terms of accuracy such as F1 score for classification and Mean Square Error (MSE), and coefficient of determination (R2) for regression of the multilayer perceptron (MLP) by demonstrating the efficacy of KAN in handling both classification and regression tasks. We provide a promising direction for future research to explore advanced machine learning techniques, which lead to more accurate predictions and better interpretability of complex materials, ultimately accelerating the discovery and optimization of HEAs with desirable properties.

Datasets play a critical role in medical imaging research, yet issues such as label quality, shortcuts, and metadata are often overlooked. This lack of attention may harm the generalizability of algorithms and, consequently, negatively impact patient outcomes. While existing medical imaging literature reviews mostly focus on machine learning (ML) methods, with only a few focusing on datasets for specific applications, these reviews remain static -- they are published once and not updated thereafter. This fails to account for emerging evidence, such as biases, shortcuts, and additional annotations that other researchers may contribute after the dataset is published. We refer to these newly discovered findings of datasets as research artifacts. To address this gap, we propose a living review that continuously tracks public datasets and their associated research artifacts across multiple medical imaging applications. Our approach includes a framework for the living review to monitor data documentation artifacts, and an SQL database to visualize the citation relationships between research artifact and dataset. Lastly, we discuss key considerations for creating medical imaging datasets, review best practices for data annotation, discuss the significance of shortcuts and demographic diversity, and emphasize the importance of managing datasets throughout their entire lifecycle. Our demo is publicly available at http://inthepicture.itu.dk/.

Medical Imaging (MI) datasets are fundamental to artificial intelligence in healthcare. The accuracy, robustness, and fairness of diagnostic algorithms depend on the data (and its quality) used to train and evaluate the models. MI datasets used to be proprietary, but have become increasingly available to the public, including on community-contributed platforms (CCPs) like Kaggle or HuggingFace. While open data is important to enhance the redistribution of data's public value, we find that the current CCP governance model fails to uphold the quality needed and recommended practices for sharing, documenting, and evaluating datasets. In this paper, we conduct an analysis of publicly available machine learning datasets on CCPs, discussing datasets' context, and identifying limitations and gaps in the current CCP landscape. We highlight differences between MI and computer vision datasets, particularly in the potentially harmful downstream effects from poor adoption of recommended dataset management practices. We compare the analyzed datasets across several dimensions, including data sharing, data documentation, and maintenance. We find vague licenses, lack of persistent identifiers and storage, duplicates, and missing metadata, with differences between the platforms. Our research contributes to efforts in responsible data curation and AI algorithms for healthcare.