Kevin Miller’s research while affiliated with Brigham Young University and other places

What is this page?


This page lists works of an author who doesn't have a ResearchGate profile or hasn't added the works to their profile yet. It is automatically generated from public (personal) data to further our legitimate goal of comprehensive and accurate scientific recordkeeping. If you are this author and want this page removed, please let us know.

Publications (20)


Fig. 1. The flowchart of our basic contrastive graph-based active learning pipeline (CGAP): 1. (Red Boxes) A neural network is trained with contrastive learning to convert raw images into feature vectors. 2. (Yellow Box) Condense the labeled feature vector set into a smaller representative set (RepSet) using active learning approaches. 3. (Cyan Box) Build a graph based on the union of the RepSet and the unlabeled feature set. Then, apply graph learning approaches to predict labels for unlabeled features.
Fig. 2. The architecture of our feature embedding neural network.
Fig. 3. The creation of the RepSet with active learning. This process uses the graph Laplace learning [44], the Uncertainty acquisition function [46]-[48], and the LocalMax batch active learning [33] approaches.
Fig. 10. Results from an image of the Ucayali River which is not included in the RiverPIXELS dataset. Region information: a rectangle centered at -73.4487, -4.45291 with a longitude range of 0.2 and a latitude range of 0.15. Panel (a) is the RGB visualization of the 30-meter resolution. Panels (b) -(d) are three predictions of the same region with different resolutions: (b) higher resolution (15 m), (c) native resolution (30 m), (d) coarser resolution (60 m). Purple, cyan, and yellow represent land, water, and sediment respectively. Our predictions are robust among various resolutions.
Fig. 11. Results from an image of the Murray River which is not included in the RiverPIXELS dataset. Region information: a rectangle centering at 138.88, -35.559 with a longitude range of 0.3 and a latitude range of 0.15. Panel (a) is the RGB visualization of the 30-meter resolution. Panels (b) -(d) are three predictions of the same region with different resolutions: (b) higher resolution (15 m), (c) native resolution (30 m), (d) coarser resolution (60 m). Purple, cyan, and yellow represent land, water, and sediment respectively. Our predictions are robust among various resolutions.
CGAP: A Hybrid Contrastive and Graph-based Active Learning Pipeline to Detect Water and Sediment in Multispectral Images
  • Preprint
  • File available

June 2024

·

27 Reads

Bohan Chen

·

Kevin Miller

·

·

Jon Schwenk

We develop a contrastive graph-based active learning pipeline (CGAP) to identify surface water and nearwater sediment pixels in multispectral images. CGAP enhances the graph-based active learning pipeline (GAP) designed for surface water and sediment detection in multispectral imagery (10.1109/IGARSS52108.2023.10282009), which outperformed conventional methods such as CNN-Unet, SVM, and RF. Our improvements focus on boosting both the pipeline’s robustness and efficiency by integrating a feature-embedding neural network prior to graph construction. Trained using contrastive learning, this neural network projects high-dimensional raw features into a lower-dimensional space, facilitating more efficient graph learning. The training process incorporates specialized augmentations to bolster the embedded features’ resilience to geometric transformations, varying resolutions, and light cloud cover. Moreover, we develop a Python-based demo, GraphRiverClassifier (GRC), that uses Google Earth Engine and our enhanced pipeline to provide a user-friendly tool for rapid and accurate surface water and sediment analyses and rapid testing of algorithm performances.

Download

Fig. 1 Active Learning Flowchart. The cycle begins by (1-red) training the underlying semi-supervised classifier with the current labeled set L with labels {y j } j∈L . In this paper, we focus on graph-based SSL classifiers that propagate influence via a similarity graph (see Sect. 2.1). Query points Q ⊂ U are then selected (2-green) from the unlabeled data (U) as the maximizers of an acquisition function that quantifies the "informativeness" of each unlabeled point k ∈ U is evaluated. Finally, the query points are labeled (3-blue) according to an oracle (i.e., a domain expert or human in the loop labeler) and subsequently added to the labeled data L . The process repeats with the updated labeled data, retraining the SSL classifier to prepare for another active learning query and update
Fig. 5 Accuracy plots for acquisition functions in the CE model applied to MNIST, Salinas A, and Urban datasets. For each dataset, two points are selected uniformly at random from each class to initially label and then acquisition functions select 500 points in 100 batches of size B = 5
Model Change Active Learning in Graph-Based Semi-supervised Learning

February 2024

·

88 Reads

·

12 Citations

Communications on Applied Mathematics and Computation

Active learning in semi-supervised classification involves introducing additional labels for unlabelled data to improve the accuracy of the underlying classifier. A challenge is to identify which points to label to best improve performance while limiting the number of new labels. “Model Change” active learning quantifies the resulting change incurred in the classifier by introducing the additional label(s). We pair this idea with graph-based semi-supervised learning (SSL) methods, that use the spectrum of the graph Laplacian matrix, which can be truncated to avoid prohibitively large computational and storage costs. We consider a family of convex loss functions for which the acquisition function can be efficiently approximated using the Laplace approximation of the posterior distribution. We show a variety of multiclass examples that illustrate improved performance over prior state-of-art.


Fig. 1. The flowchart of our basic contrastive graph-based active learning pipeline (CGAP): 1. (Red Boxes) A neural network is trained with contrastive learning to convert raw images into feature vectors. 2. (Yellow Box) Condense the labeled feature vector set into a smaller representative set (RepSet) using active learning approaches. 3. (Cyan Box) Build a graph based on the union of the RepSet and the unlabeled feature set. Then, apply graph learning approaches to predict labels for unlabeled features.
Fig. 2. The architecture of our feature embedding neural network which embeds 9 × 9 × 6 neighborhood cubes into 32-dimensional feature vectors with 57836 trainable parameters. The Conv Layer denotes the convolutional layer and FC layer denotes the fully connected layer. There is a ReLU layer after each of Conv Layer 1, Conv Layer 2, and FC Layer 1. Conv Layer 1 has a kernel size of 5 and padding 2 while Conv Layer 2 has the a kernel size of 3 and padding 1. The final layer normalizes the L2 norm of the output feature vector to one, which makes it easier for the angular similarity in the loss function (1), (2) of contrastive learning.
Fig. 9. Results of our GraphRiverClassifier tool from an image of the Ucayali River, Peru which is not included in the RiverPIXELS dataset. Region information: a rectangle centered at -73.4487, -4.45291 with a longitude range of 0.2 and a latitude range of 0.15. Panel (a) is the RGB visualization of the 30-meter resolution. Panels (b) -(d) are three predictions of the same region with different resolutions: (b) higher resolution (15 m), (c) native resolution (30 m), (d) coarser resolution (60 m). Purple, cyan, and yellow represent land, water, and sediment respectively. Our predictions are robust among various resolutions.
CGAP: A Hybrid Contrastive and Graph-Based Active Learning Pipeline to Detect Water and Sediment in Multispectral Images

January 2024

·

6 Reads

IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing

We develop a contrastive graph-based active learning pipeline (CGAP) to identify surface water and near-water sediment pixels in multispectral images. CGAP enhances the graph-based active learning pipeline (GAP) (10.1109/IGARSS52108.2023.10282009), which outperforms methods such as CNN-Unet, support vector machine (SVM), and random forest (RF), while requiring less training data. Active learning plays an important role for training data reduction, resulting in an order of magintude less training data compared with conventional methods and three or more orders of magnitude less compared with CNN-Unet. Our improvements focus on boosting both the pipeline's robustness and efficiency by integrating a feature-embedding neural network prior to graph construction. This neural network, trained using contrastive learning, performs effective data dimension reduction by projecting high-dimensional raw features into a lower-dimensional space, thereby facilitating more efficient graph learning. The training process incorporates specialized augmentations to bolster the embedded features' resilience to geometric transformations, varying resolutions, and light cloud cover. Moreover, we develop a Python-based demo, GraphRiverClassifier (GRC), that uses the Google Earth Engine and our enhanced pipeline to provide a user-friendly tool for rapid and accurate surface water and sediment analyses and rapid testing of algorithm performances.



Fig. 3 Our graph-based active learning pipeline for the image segmentation task. Red box: feature extraction (Sect. 3.1); Blue box: Graph Construction (Sect. 2.1); Yellow box: Batch Active Learning (Sects. 2.3 and 3.2); Green box: Graph Learning (Sect. 2.2)
Fig. 6 The ground-truth and segmentation result of the Landsat-7 multispectral image from the RiverPIX-ELS dataset. a ground-truth labels; b segmentation result with 0.3% labeled pixels sampled according to LocalMax with a batch size of 20 and the UC acquistion function. The similarity graph is based on nonlocal means feature vectors with the neighborhood patch of size 7 × 7
Fig. 7 The segmentation result of the Urban dataset with 0.3% labeled pixels sampled according to LocalMax batch active learning with the batch size 10. a UC acquisition function; b MCVOpt acquistion function. Label information: asphalt (navy blue), grass (light blue), trees (yellow), and roof (red). The groundtruth labels are in Fig. 4b
Fig. 8 The ground-truth and segmentation result of the KSC dataset. a ground-truth labels of 5 211 pixels, including 13 classes; b segmentation result with 6% labeled pixels sampled according to LocalMax the batch active learning with the batch size 10 and the UC acquisition function
Batch Active Learning for Multispectral and Hyperspectral Image Segmentation Using Similarity Graphs

July 2023

·

48 Reads

·

9 Citations

Communications on Applied Mathematics and Computation

Graph learning, when used as a semi-supervised learning (SSL) method, performs well for classification tasks with a low label rate. We provide a graph-based batch active learning pipeline for pixel/patch neighborhood multi- or hyperspectral image segmentation. Our batch active learning approach selects a collection of unlabeled pixels that satisfy a graph local maximum constraint for the active learning acquisition function that determines the relative importance of each pixel to the classification. This work builds on recent advances in the design of novel active learning acquisition functions (e.g., the Model Change approach in arXiv:2110.07739) while adding important further developments including patch-neighborhood image analysis and batch active learning methods to further increase the accuracy and greatly increase the computational efficiency of these methods. In addition to improvements in the accuracy, our approach can greatly reduce the number of labeled pixels needed to achieve the same level of the accuracy based on randomly selected labeled pixels.


Cluster-aware Semi-supervised Learning: Relational Knowledge Distillation Provably Learns Clustering

July 2023

·

8 Reads

Despite the empirical success and practical significance of (relational) knowledge distillation that matches (the relations of) features between teacher and student models, the corresponding theoretical interpretations remain limited for various knowledge distillation paradigms. In this work, we take an initial step toward a theoretical understanding of relational knowledge distillation (RKD), with a focus on semi-supervised classification problems. We start by casting RKD as spectral clustering on a population-induced graph unveiled by a teacher model. Via a notion of clustering error that quantifies the discrepancy between the predicted and ground truth clusterings, we illustrate that RKD over the population provably leads to low clustering error. Moreover, we provide a sample complexity bound for RKD with limited unlabeled samples. For semi-supervised learning, we further demonstrate the label efficiency of RKD through a general framework of cluster-aware semi-supervised learning that assumes low clustering errors. Finally, by unifying data augmentation consistency regularization into this cluster-aware framework, we show that despite the common effect of learning accurate clusterings, RKD facilitates a "global" perspective through spectral clustering, whereas consistency regularization focuses on a "local" perspective via expansion.


Novel Batch Active Learning Approach and Its Application to Synthetic Aperture Radar Datasets

July 2023

·

1 Read

James Chapman

·

Bohan Chen

·

Zheng Tan

·

[...]

·

Active learning improves the performance of machine learning methods by judiciously selecting a limited number of unlabeled data points to query for labels, with the aim of maximally improving the underlying classifier's performance. Recent gains have been made using sequential active learning for synthetic aperture radar (SAR) data arXiv:2204.00005. In each iteration, sequential active learning selects a query set of size one while batch active learning selects a query set of multiple datapoints. While batch active learning methods exhibit greater efficiency, the challenge lies in maintaining model accuracy relative to sequential active learning methods. We developed a novel, two-part approach for batch active learning: Dijkstra's Annulus Core-Set (DAC) for core-set generation and LocalMax for batch sampling. The batch active learning process that combines DAC and LocalMax achieves nearly identical accuracy as sequential active learning but is more efficient, proportional to the batch size. As an application, a pipeline is built based on transfer learning feature embedding, graph learning, DAC, and LocalMax to classify the FUSAR-Ship and OpenSARShip datasets. Our pipeline outperforms the state-of-the-art CNN-based methods.



Graph-based Active Learning for Surface Water and Sediment Detection in Multispectral Images

June 2023

·

6 Reads

We develop a graph active learning pipeline (GAP) to detect surface water and in-river sediment pixels in satellite images. The active learning approach is applied within the training process to optimally select specific pixels to generate a hand-labeled training set. Our method obtains higher accuracy with far fewer training pixels than both standard and deep learning models. According to our experiments, our GAP trained on a set of 3270 pixels reaches a better accuracy than the neural network method trained on 2.1 million pixels.



Citations (10)


... Such as the criteria of margin-based sampling [8], least confidence sampling [9], maximum entropy sampling [10], and disagreement sampling [11], etc., all belong to the uncertainty sampling criteria. Methods fall into the second type include expected error reduction [12], expected model change [13][14][15], expected model output change [6,16], etc. These criteria are employed to assess the extent of influence on the model learning in case an instance is labeled. ...

Reference:

Batch-mode active ordinal classification based on expected model output change and leadership tree
Model Change Active Learning in Graph-Based Semi-supervised Learning

Communications on Applied Mathematics and Computation

... In particular, an uncertainty-based acquisition function favors unlabeled points that are near a decision boundary and are most "uncertain" for classification. These methods are emblematic of exploitative active learning since they explicitly use measures of distances to decision boundaries to select query points [38]. Moreover, some of the acquisition functions designed for graph-based classifiers include Uncertainty Norm for Poisson Reweighted Laplace Learning [38], Variance Minimization (VOpt) [25], Model-Change (MC) [36,37], model-change variance optimal (MCVOpt) [36,37], Σ-optimality [29], hierarchical sampling for active learning [20], Cautious Active Clustering [17], and Shortest-Shortest path S 2 [19]. ...

Poisson Reweighted Laplacian Uncertainty Sampling for Graph-Based Active Learning
  • Citing Article
  • December 2023

SIAM Journal on Mathematics of Data Science

... A general graph learning approach for image segmentation is based on a similarity graph generated from pixel features, with each pixel's feature vector serving as a node and the edge weights representing the similarity between nodes. To enhance the efficiency of graph learning, we previously introduced a graph-based active learning pipeline (GAP) [9], which does not require constructing a graph on the millions of pixels corresponding to the 104 patches in the RiverPIXELS dataset-a process that would be computationally inefficient. Instead, it employs an active learning approach [35], [36] to select representative samples from the training set. ...

Graph-Based Active Learning for Surface Water and Sediment Detection in Multispectral Images
  • Citing Conference Paper
  • July 2023

... With regards to active learning for graph-based semi-supervised classifiers, various recent pipelines have been developed for image processing applications including image segmentation [16], surface water and sediment detection [15], classification of synthetic aperture radar (SAR) data [14,39], unsupervised clustering of hyperspectal images using nonlinear diffusion [40], and hyperspectral unmixing [15]. ...

Batch Active Learning for Multispectral and Hyperspectral Image Segmentation Using Similarity Graphs

Communications on Applied Mathematics and Computation

... Graph learning also contrasts with modern deep learning approaches in that it is a datadependent model without any trainable parameters. Previous works (Chapman et al., 2023;Chen et al., 2023a,b) show that graph learning outperforms many popular classifiers like support vector machine (Cortes and Vapnik (1995)), random forest (Ho (1995)), and neural networks on classification tasks, especially at very low label rates. ...

Novel batch active learning approach and its application on the synthetic aperture radar datasets
  • Citing Conference Paper
  • June 2023

... To this end, [23], [7] proposed an event-triggered mechanism and [8], [9], [6] proposed to activate links with predetermined probabilities. In this regard, our work designs predetermined link activation as in [8], [9], [6], which provides more predictable performance than event-triggered mechanisms, but we consider a cost model tailored to overlay-based DFL: instead of measuring the communication time by the number of matchings [8], [9], [6] or the maximum degree [10], [11], we use the minimum time to complete the activated agentto-agent communications over a bandwidth-limited underlay, while taking into account limited link capacities and possibly shared links. ...

Efficient and Reliable Overlay Networks for Decentralized Federated Learning
  • Citing Article
  • August 2022

SIAM Journal on Applied Mathematics

... In such works, unsupervised or semi-supervised neural networks learn an embedding of the data into a feature space and use the similarity between features to construction the graph. Examples of such deep learning techniques include variational autoencoders (VAEs) (Kingma and Welling (2013); ; Calder and Ettehad (2022)), convolutional neural networks (CNNs) (LeCun et al. (1989); Enwright et al. (2023)), convolutional VAEs (Pu et al. (2016); Miller et al. (2022); Chapman et al. (2023)), and contrastive learning (Chen et al. (2020a); Brown et al. (2023b,a)). Some works have used graph learning to generate pseudolabels to train a deep neural network in low label rate settings (Sellars et al. (2021); Iscen et al. (2019)). ...

Graph-based active learning for semi-supervised classification of SAR data
  • Citing Conference Paper
  • May 2022

... An acquisition function is used to quantify which data would be useful to label from the set of available unlabeled data. Active learning can significantly improve classifier performance at very low label rates and minimize the cost of labeling data by domain experts [15,31,33,39]. ...

Model-Change Active Learning in Graph-Based Semi-Supervised Learning

... The approach described in this study has strong connections with semi-supervised classification algorithms on graphs [35,36,37,38,39], and relies on theoretical results on consistency of graph-based methods in the limit of infinite data [40,41]. The results presented in this study may be considered as a probabilistic extension of the ideas developed for the SpecMF method [42]. ...

Posterior consistency of semi-supervised regression on graphs

... The main difference between them and the Laplace learning scheme is the choice of penalty function . In this paper, we use the multiclass Gaussian regression (MGR) model [4,26] which applies an L 2 -norm penalty function (x, y) = 1 ...

Posterior Consistency of Semi-Supervised Regression on Graphs
  • Citing Article
  • July 2020