| Literature DB >> 36010243 |
Mario Jojoa1, Begonya Garcia-Zapirain2, Winston Percybrooks1.
Abstract
Our aim is to contribute to the classification of anomalous patterns in biosignals using this novel approach. We specifically focus on melanoma and heart murmurs. We use a comparative study of two convolution networks in the Complex and Real numerical domains. The idea is to obtain a powerful approach for building portable systems for early disease detection. Two similar algorithmic structures were chosen so that there is no bias determined by the number of parameters to train. Three clinical data sets, ISIC2017, PH2, and Pascal, were used to carry out the experiments. Mean comparison hypothesis tests were performed to ensure statistical objectivity in the conclusions. In all cases, complex-valued networks presented a superior performance for the Precision, Recall, F1 Score, Accuracy, and Specificity metrics in the detection of associated anomalies. The best complex number-based classifier obtained in the Receiving Operating Characteristic (ROC) space presents a Euclidean distance of 0.26127 with respect to the ideal classifier, as opposed to the best real number-based classifier, whose Euclidean distance to the ideal is 0.36022 for the same task of melanoma detection. The 27.46% superiority in this metric, as in the others reported in this work, suggests that complex-valued networks have a greater ability to extract features for more efficient discrimination in the dataset.Entities:
Keywords: complex numbers; complex-valued convolution neural networks; complex-valued deep learning; fair performance comparison; real-valued neural networks
Year: 2022 PMID: 36010243 PMCID: PMC9406326 DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics12081893
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Diagnostics (Basel) ISSN: 2075-4418
Review of the state of the art in the most representative works related to the use of complex-valued neural networks for classification tasks.
| Authors | Dataset Used | Task | Methods | Results |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yue Qi, Qiu Hua Lin, Li Dan Kuang, Wen Da Zhao, Xiao Feng Gong, Fengyu Cong, Vince D. Calhoun [ | Used 82 resting-state complex-valued fMRI datasets, including 42 SZs and 40 HCs | Classifying schizophrenia patients (SZs) and healthy controls (HCs) | This study proposes a novel framework combining independent component analysis (ICA) and complex-valued convolutional neural networks (CVDL). ICA is first used to obtain components of interest that have been previously implicated in schizophrenia. |
The proposed method shows an average accuracy of 72.65% in the default mode network and 78.34% in the auditory cortex for slice-level classification. When performing subject-level classification based on majority voting, the result shows 91.32% and 98.75% average accuracy. |
| Shizhen Hu, Seko Nagae, Akira Hirose [ | They prepared 7 different concentration samples and measured 30 times for each sample | Glucose concentration estimation | In this paper, an adaptive glucose concentration estimation system is proposed. The system estimates glucose concentration values non-invasively by making full use of transmission magnitude and phase data. The 60–80 GHz frequency band millimeter wave is chosen, and a single output neuron complex-valued neural network (CVNN) is built for adaptive concentration estimation. |
The system shows a good generalization ability to estimate the concentration for unknown samples. It is effective in the estimation of the glucose concentration in the clinically practical range. The mean squared error (MSE) for the CVNN is 0.011, while the MSE for the RVNN is 0.099. |
| Joshua Bassey, Xiangfang Li, Lijun Qian [ | Used 167 publications | Discuss the recent development of CVNNs | A detailed review of various CVNNs in terms of activation function, learning and optimization, input and output representations, and their applications in tasks such as signal processing and computer vision are provided, followed by a discussion on some pertinent challenges and future research directions. | Complex-valued neural networks, compared to their real-valued counterparts, are still considered an emerging field and require more attention and action from the deep learning and signal processing research community. |
| Yang Ximei [ | A total of 5 radar data pre-processing approaches were implemented to generate dataset samples, including FFT and STFT | Human-motion classification based on monostatic radar | This thesis proposes three complex-valued convolutional neural networks (CNNs) for human-motion classification based on monostatic radar. The range-time, range-Doppler, range-spectrum-time, and time-frequency spectrograms of micro-Doppler signatures are adopted as the input to CVNNs with different plural-handled approaches. A series of experiments determine the optimal approach and data format that achieves the highest classification accuracy. |
As for 5 radar data formats, range-time and pseudo-Doppler-time have the highest accuracy (92.6% and 87.5%, respectively), followed by range-spectrum-time and range-Doppler (81.3% and 72.3%, respectively). Doppler-time has the worst performance with only 62% accuracy. Deep neural networks achieve the best classification accuracy on CVNNs, while shallow neural networks do not. |
| Shubhankar Rawat, K.P.S. Rana, Vineet Kumar [ | A total of 5232 CXR images from 5856 patients aged 1 to 5 years from Guangzhou Women and Children’s Medical Center, Guangzhou, Guangdong province (China). For this work, out of the 5232 images, only 500 images were considered for MID experimentations, which were randomly selected | Investigate a novel complex-valued convolutional neural network-based model, termed CVMIDNet, for medical image denoising | The model uses residual learning, which learns noise from noisy images and then subtracts it from noisy images so as to obtain clean images. To assess the denoising performance of | CVMIDNet was found to be superior. For instance, for a Gaussian noise level of σ = 15, the peak signal-to-noise ratio and structural similarity index values achieved by the CVMIDNet are 37.2010 and 0.9227, respectively, against the 36.2292 and 0.9086, 36.3203 and 0.9139, 35.0995 and 0.9005, 36.1830 and 0.8968, 34.2436 and 0.8874 achieved by BM3D filtering, DnCNN, |
| Theresa Scarnati, Benjamin Lewis [ | SAMPLE dataset includes 10 classes with equal numbers of measured and synthetic SARimages: 1366 measured and 1366 synthetic. Total: 2732 | They present a survey of several complex neural network techniques as applied to a SAR dataset consisting of military targets | Specifically, they evaluate a multi-channel approach with Deep Complex Networks and SurReal against (i) limited training data and (ii) when the training and testing data exhibit a domain mismatch. |
The SurReal network performs best when trained with measured data, and the multi-channel approach with real and imaginary channels performs best when trained with synthetic data. |
| Bungo Konishi, Akira Hirose, Ryo Natsuaki [ | An interferogram around Mt. Fuji observed on 25 November 2010 and 12 April 2011. | In this paper, they propose complex-valued reservoir computing (CVRC) to deal with complex-valued images in interferometric synthetic aperture radar (InSAR) | They classify InSAR image data by using CVRC successfully with a higher resolution and a lower computational cost, i.e., one hundredth learning time and one-fifth classification time than convolutional neural networks. | CVRC is found applicable to quantitative tasks dealing with continuous values as well as discrete classification tasks with higher accuracy. |
| Linfang Xiao, Yilong Liu, Zheyuan Yi, Yujiao Zhao, Linshan Xie, Peibei Cao, Alex T L Leong, Ed X Wu [ | T1w GRE axial brain dataset: 57 and 10 subjects with 200 axial slices extracted from each subject were used for training and testing, respectively | To provide a complex-valued deep learning approach for partial Fourier (PF) reconstruction of complex MR images | They propose a complex-valued deep learning approach with an unrolled network architecture for PF reconstruction that iteratively reconstructs OF sampled data and enforces data consistency. They evaluate their approach for reconstructing both spin-echo and gradient-echo data. | The proposed method outperformed the iterative POCS PF reconstruction method. It produced better artifact suppression and recovery of both image magnitude and phase details in the presence of local phase changes. Moreover, the network trained on axial brain data could reconstruct sagittal and coronal brain and knee data. |
| Duan C, Xiong Y, Cheng K, Xiao S, Lyu J, Wang C, Bian X, Zhang J, Zhang D, Chen L, Zhou X, | SWI data were acquired from 117 participants who underwent clinical brain MRI examinations between 2019 and 2021, including patients with tumor, stroke, hemorrhage, traumatic brain injury, etc. | Propose a deep learning model to accelerate susceptibility-weighted imaging (SWI) acquisition times and evaluate the clinical feasibility of this approach | A complex-valued convolutional neural network (ComplexNet) was developed to reconstruct high-quality SWI from highly accelerated k-space data. ComplexNet can leverage the inherently complex-valued nature of | The average reconstruction time of ComplexNet was 19 ms per section (1.33 s per participant). ComplexNet achieved significantly improved quantitative image metrics compared to a conventional compressed sensing method and a real-valued network with acceleration rates of 5 and 8 ( |
| Haozhen Li, Boyuan Zhang, Haoran Chang, Xin Liang, Xinyu Gu [ | CSI dataset generated by COST2100 channel model is used. The training, validation, and testing sets contain 100,000, 30,000, and 20,000 samples, respectively | They present a complex-valued lightweight neural network for channel state information (CSI) feedback named CVLNet | The CVLNet adopts the complex-valued neural network components in a multi-scale feature augmentation encoder and a multi-resolution X-shaped reconstruction decoder with a series of lightweight details. | The experiment results show that the proposed CVLNet maintains the same-level parameters of the encoder with state-of-the-art (SOTA) lightweight networks while outperforming them with at most a 33.4% improvement in accuracy under severe compression rates. |
Figure 1Examples of normal and abnormal images from the ISIC2017 dataset.
Figure 2Examples of normal and abnormal images from the PH2 dataset.
Figure 3Images of a normal and abnormal scalogram retrieved from the PASCAL database.
Summary table of the most relevant characteristics of the ISI2017, PH2, and Pascal datasets.
| Name of the Database | Normal Data | Abnormal Data | Data Type | Associated Illness |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ISIC2017 | 1621 | 374 | Dermatoscopy image | Melanoma |
| PH2 | 160 | 40 | Dermatoscopy image | Melanoma |
| PASCAL | 320 | 141 | Sounds/Scalogram | Heart murmurs |
Figure 4Block diagram of the proposed solution approach.
Experiment design for this research work.
| Structure/Database | ISIC2017 | PH2 | PASCAL |
|---|---|---|---|
| Complex-valued structure | Accuracy, F1 Score, Precision, Recall, Sensitivity, Specificity | ibidem | Ibidem |
| Real-valued structure | ibidem | ibidem | Ibidem |
Figure 5Convolution network structure based on complex numbers for this study.
Figure 6Convolution network structure based on real numbers for this study.
Table of hyperparameters used for the complex/real-valued convolution networks.
| Hyperparameter | Complex-Valued | Real-Valued |
|---|---|---|
| Activation function | Complex Relu | Relu |
| Learning Rate | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Optimizer | ADAM with Complex Correction | ADAM |
Number of parameters in the networks studied.
| Layer | Amount of Parameters Complex-Valued | Amount of Parameters Real-Valued |
|---|---|---|
| Conv1 | 71,940 | 290,400 |
| Conv2 | 186,608 | 285,144 |
| Conv3 | 725,760 | 1,492,992 |
| Fully Connected 1 | 169,600 | 359,552 |
| Fully Connected 2 | 1200 | 1200 |
| Fully Connected 3 | 500 | 500 |
| Output | 2 | 2 |
Results obtained with the complex-valued convolution network studied for the ISIC2017 dataset.
| Structure/Metric | Fold | F1 Score | Precision | Recall/Sensitivity | Accuracy | Specificity |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Complex-Valued Convolution | 1 | 0.90410 | 0.89411 | 0.914328 | 0.77889 | 0.73888 |
| 2 | 0.91490 | 0.90734 | 0.922586 | 0.76382 | 0.74650 | |
| 3 | 0.93140 | 0.93938 | 0.923584 | 0.79899 | 0.75860 | |
| 4 | 0.91270 | 0.91895 | 0.906528 | 0.80402 | 0.73957 | |
| 5 | 0.92270 | 0.94316 | 0.903088 | 0.79397 | 0.78863 | |
| 6 | 0.93140 | 0.93279 | 0.930083 | 0.79397 | 0.74694 | |
| 7 | 0.89580 | 0.89813 | 0.893478 | 0.77387 | 0.75531 | |
| 8 | 0.90550 | 0.92049 | 0.890943 | 0.76884 | 0.75336 | |
| 9 | 0.91700 | 0.90336 | 0.931074 | 0.80402 | 0.74156 | |
| 10 | 0.93320 | 0.94119 | 0.925291 | 0.82412 | 0.76313 | |
| Max Complex | 0.93320 | 0.94316 | 0.931074 | 0.93107 | 0.78863 | |
| Min Complex | 0.89580 | 0.89411 | 0.890943 | 0.89094 | 0.73888 | |
| Mean Complex | 0.91690 | 0.91989 | 0.914098 | 0.91409 | 0.75325 | |
| Normality Test/ | 0.55702 | 0.28137 | 0.09199 | 0.70872 | 0.21898 | |
Results obtained with the real-valued convolution network studied for the ISIC2017 dataset.
| Structure/Metric | Fold | F1 Score | Precision | Recall/Sensitivity | Accuracy | Specificity |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Real-Valued Convolution | 1 | 0.86960 | 0.86078 | 0.87854 | 0.66834 | 0.66298 |
| 2 | 0.88730 | 0.90188 | 0.87316 | 0.69347 | 0.66127 | |
| 3 | 0.87180 | 0.86158 | 0.88229 | 0.67337 | 0.64810 | |
| 4 | 0.86750 | 0.86807 | 0.86694 | 0.73869 | 0.67762 | |
| 5 | 0.88280 | 0.90251 | 0.86399 | 0.68342 | 0.63900 | |
| 6 | 0.87890 | 0.87545 | 0.88247 | 0.68342 | 0.63624 | |
| 7 | 0.87910 | 0.87691 | 0.88128 | 0.66332 | 0.67711 | |
| 8 | 0.86120 | 0.87116 | 0.85153 | 0.69849 | 0.67995 | |
| 9 | 0.87420 | 0.88535 | 0.86323 | 0.66834 | 0.67312 | |
| 10 | 0.88780 | 0.88409 | 0.89156 | 0.65829 | 0.67185 | |
| Max | 0.88780 | 0.90251 | 0.89156 | 0.73869 | 0.67995 | |
| Min | 0.86120 | 0.86078 | 0.85153 | 0.65829 | 0.63624 | |
| Mean | 0.87600 | 0.87878 | 0.87350 | 0.68291 | 0.66272 | |
| Normality Test/ | 0.10060 | 0.32868 | 0.77467 | 0.07353 | 0.11563 | |
Means comparison hypothesis test for dataset ISIC 2017.
| Metric | Student’s |
|---|---|
| F1 Score | 0.00001 |
| Precision | 0.00004 |
| Recall | 0.00002 |
| Accuracy | 0.00001 |
| Specificity | 0.00001 |
Results obtained with the complex-valued convolution network studied for the PH2 dataset.
| Structure/Metric | Fold | F1 Score | Precision | Recall/Sensitivity | Accuracy | Specificity |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Complex-Valued Convolution | 1 | 0.90909 | 0.93750 | 0.88235 | 0.88235 | 0.66667 |
| 2 | 0.90909 | 0.93750 | 0.88235 | 0.88235 | 0.66667 | |
| 3 | 0.86667 | 0.92857 | 0.81250 | 0.81250 | 0.75000 | |
| 4 | 0.87500 | 0.93333 | 0.82353 | 0.82353 | 0.66667 | |
| 5 | 0.84615 | 0.91667 | 0.78571 | 0.78571 | 0.83333 | |
| 6 | 0.89655 | 0.92857 | 0.86667 | 0.86667 | 0.80000 | |
| 7 | 0.90323 | 0.93333 | 0.87500 | 0.87500 | 0.75000 | |
| 8 | 0.91429 | 0.94118 | 0.88889 | 0.88889 | 0.50000 | |
| 9 | 0.86667 | 0.92857 | 0.81250 | 0.81250 | 0.75000 | |
| 10 | 0.88889 | 0.92308 | 0.85714 | 0.85714 | 0.83333 | |
| Max Complex | 0.91429 | 0.94118 | 0.88889 | 0.85000 | 0.83333 | |
| Min Complex | 0.84615 | 0.91667 | 0.78571 | 0.80000 | 0.50000 | |
| Mean Complex | 0.88756 | 0.93083 | 0.84866 | 0.83000 | 0.72167 | |
| Normality Test/ | 0.71070 | 0.14828 | 0.36900 | 0.00017 | 0.14913 | |
Results obtained with the real-valued convolution network studied for the PH2 dataset.
| Structure/Metric | Fold | F1 Score | Precision | Recall/Sensitivity | Accuracy | Specificity |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Real-Valued Convolution | 1 | 0.81818 | 0.90000 | 0.75000 | 0.80000 | 0.87500 |
| 2 | 0.82353 | 0.87500 | 0.77778 | 0.70000 | 0.00000 | |
| 3 | 0.81250 | 0.86667 | 0.76471 | 0.70000 | 0.33333 | |
| 4 | 0.81250 | 0.86667 | 0.76471 | 0.70000 | 0.33333 | |
| 5 | 0.76923 | 0.83333 | 0.71429 | 0.70000 | 0.66667 | |
| 6 | 0.81250 | 0.86667 | 0.76471 | 0.70000 | 0.33333 | |
| 7 | 0.81250 | 0.86667 | 0.76471 | 0.70000 | 0.33333 | |
| 8 | 0.80000 | 0.85714 | 0.75000 | 0.70000 | 0.50000 | |
| 9 | 0.78571 | 0.84615 | 0.73333 | 0.70000 | 0.60000 | |
| 10 | 0.81250 | 0.86667 | 0.76471 | 0.70000 | 0.33333 | |
| Max | 0.82353 | 0.90000 | 0.77778 | 0.80000 | 0.87500 | |
| Min | 0.76923 | 0.83333 | 0.71429 | 0.70000 | 0.00000 | |
| Mean | 0.80592 | 0.86450 | 0.75489 | 0.71000 | 0.43083 | |
| Normality Test/ | 0.21406 | 0.05052 | 0.15922 | 0.00001 | 0.31439 | |
Mean comparison hypothesis test for dataset PH2.
| Metric | Student’s |
|---|---|
| F1 Score | 7.71763 × 108 |
| Precision | 1.13570 × 107 |
| Recall | 6.08852 × 106 |
| Specificity | 4.11085 × 103 |
Results obtained with the complex-valued convolution network studied for the Pascal dataset.
| Structure/Metric | Fold | F1 Score | Precision | Recall/Sensitivity | Accuracy | Specificity |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Complex-Valued Convolution | 1 | 0.82540 | 0.89655 | 0.76471 | 0.76596 | 0.76923 |
| 2 | 0.87273 | 0.92308 | 0.82759 | 0.84783 | 0.88235 | |
| 3 | 0.80702 | 0.88462 | 0.74194 | 0.76087 | 0.80000 | |
| 4 | 0.88889 | 0.92308 | 0.85714 | 0.86957 | 0.88889 | |
| 5 | 0.81967 | 0.89286 | 0.75758 | 0.76087 | 0.76923 | |
| 6 | 0.84211 | 0.88889 | 0.80000 | 0.80435 | 0.81250 | |
| 7 | 0.83582 | 0.90323 | 0.77778 | 0.76087 | 0.70000 | |
| 8 | 0.86792 | 0.92000 | 0.82143 | 0.84783 | 0.88889 | |
| 9 | 0.83077 | 0.90000 | 0.77143 | 0.76087 | 0.72727 | |
| 10 | 0.83582 | 0.90323 | 0.77778 | 0.76087 | 0.70000 | |
| Max Complex | 0.88889 | 0.92308 | 0.85714 | 0.86957 | 0.88889 | |
| Min Complex | 0.80702 | 0.88462 | 0.74194 | 0.76087 | 0.70000 | |
| Mean Complex | 0.84261 | 0.90355 | 0.78974 | 0.79399 | 0.79384 | |
| Normality Test/ | 0.22495 | 0.58013 | 0.48847 | 0.00280 | 0.18135 | |
Results obtained with the real-valued convolution network studied for the Pascal dataset.
| Structure/Metric | Fold | F1 Score | Precision | Recall/Sensitivity | Accuracy | Specificity |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Real-Valued Convolution | 1 | 0.74510 | 0.82609 | 0.67857 | 0.72340 | 0.78947 |
| 2 | 0.76923 | 0.83333 | 0.71429 | 0.73913 | 0.77778 | |
| 3 | 0.76667 | 0.85185 | 0.69697 | 0.69565 | 0.69231 | |
| 4 | 0.78788 | 0.83871 | 0.74286 | 0.69565 | 0.54545 | |
| 5 | 0.75862 | 0.84615 | 0.68750 | 0.69565 | 0.71429 | |
| 6 | 0.75000 | 0.82759 | 0.68571 | 0.65217 | 0.54545 | |
| 7 | 0.80702 | 0.85185 | 0.76667 | 0.76087 | 0.75000 | |
| 8 | 0.76471 | 0.83871 | 0.70270 | 0.65217 | 0.44444 | |
| 9 | 0.77966 | 0.85185 | 0.71875 | 0.71739 | 0.71429 | |
| 10 | 0.80702 | 0.85185 | 0.76667 | 0.76087 | 0.75000 | |
| Max | 0.80702 | 0.85185 | 0.76667 | 0.76087 | 0.78947 | |
| Min | 0.74510 | 0.82609 | 0.67857 | 0.65217 | 0.44444 | |
| Mean | 0.77359 | 0.84180 | 0.71607 | 0.70930 | 0.67235 | |
| Normality Test/ | 0.06181 | 0.17432 | 0.41637 | 0.36105 | 0.05332 | |
Mean comparison hypothesis test for Pascal Dataset dataset.
| Metric | Student’s |
|---|---|
| F1 Score | 4.0131 × 109 |
| Precision | 1.4683 × 104 |
| Recall | 5.0077 × 106 |
| Specificity | 0.01450 |
Results of the Mann–Whitney U hypothesis test.
| Metric | Dataset | Test Executed | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Accuracy | PH2 | U | 0.00134 |
| Accuracy | Pascal | U | 0.02377 |
Figure 7ROC space of the obtained classifier.