RecSOI: recommending research directions using statements of ignorance.

The more science advances, the more questions are asked. This compounding growth can make it difficult to keep up with current research directions. Furthermore, this difficulty is exacerbated for junior researchers who enter fields with already large bases of potentially fruitful research avenues. In this paper, we propose a novel task and a recommender system for research directions, RecSOI, that draws from statements of ignorance (SOIs) found in the research literature. By building researchers' profiles based on textual elements, RecSOI generates personalized recommendations of potential research directions tailored to their interests. In addition, RecSOI provides context for the recommended SOIs, so that users can quickly evaluate how relevant the research direction is for them. In this paper, we provide an overview of RecSOI's functioning, implementation, and evaluation, demonstrating its effectiveness in guiding researchers through the vast landscape of potential research directions.

Predicting User Preferences of Dimensionality Reduction Embedding Quality.

A plethora of dimensionality reduction techniques have emerged over the past decades, leaving researchers and analysts with a wide variety of choices for reducing their data, all the more so given some techniques come with additional hyper-parametrization (e.g., t-SNE, UMAP, etc.). Recent studies are showing that people often use dimensionality reduction as a black-box regardless of the specific properties the method itself preserves. Hence, evaluating and comparing 2D embeddings is usually qualitatively decided, by setting embeddings side-by-side and letting human judgment decide which embedding is the best. In this work, we propose a quantitative way of evaluating embeddings, that nonetheless places human perception at the center. We run a comparative study, where we ask people to select "good" and "misleading" views between scatterplots of low-dimensional embeddings of image datasets, simulating the way people usually select embeddings. We use the study data as labels for a set of quality metrics for a supervised machine learning model whose purpose is to discover and quantify what exactly people are looking for when deciding between embeddings. With the model as a proxy for human judgments, we use it to rank embeddings on new datasets, explain why they are relevant, and quantify the degree of subjectivity when people select preferred embeddings.

Towards a safe and efficient clinical implementation of machine learning in radiation oncology by exploring model interpretability, explainability and data-model dependency.

The interest in machine learning (ML) has grown tremendously in recent years, partly due to the performance leap that occurred with new techniques of deep learning, convolutional neural networks for images, increased computational power, and wider availability of large datasets. Most fields of medicine follow that popular trend and, notably, radiation oncology is one of those that are at the forefront, with already a long tradition in using digital images and fully computerized workflows. ML models are driven by data, and in contrast with many statistical or physical models, they can be very large and complex, with countless generic parameters. This inevitably raises two questions, namely, the tight dependence between the models and the datasets that feed them, and the interpretability of the models, which scales with its complexity. Any problems in the data used to train the model will be later reflected in their performance. This, together with the low interpretability of ML models, makes their implementation into the clinical workflow particularly difficult. Building tools for risk assessment and quality assurance of ML models must involve then two main points: interpretability and data-model dependency. After a joint introduction of both radiation oncology and ML, this paper reviews the main risks and current solutions when applying the latter to workflows in the former. Risks associated with data and models, as well as their interaction, are detailed. Next, the core concepts of interpretability, explainability, and data-model dependency are formally defined and illustrated with examples. Afterwards, a broad discussion goes through key applications of ML in workflows of radiation oncology as well as vendors' perspectives for the clinical implementation of ML.