Abstract
Abstract
Science teams for rover-based planetary exploration missions like the Mars Science Laboratory Curiosity rover have limited time for analyzing new data before making decisions about follow-up observations. There is a need for systems that can rapidly and intelligently extract information from planetary instrument datasets and focus attention on the most promising or novel observations. Several novelty detection methods have been explored in prior work for three-channel color images and non-image datasets, but few have considered multispectral or hyperspectral image datasets for the purpose of scientific discovery. We compared the performance of four novelty detection methods—Reed Xiaoli (RX) detectors, principal component analysis (PCA), autoencoders, and generative adversarial networks (GANs)—and the ability of each method to provide explanatory visualizations to help scientists understand and trust predictions made by the system. We show that pixel-wise RX and autoencoders trained with structural similarity (SSIM) loss can detect morphological novelties that are not detected by PCA, GANs, and mean squared error autoencoders, but that the latter methods are better suited for detecting spectral novelties—i.e., the best method for a given setting depends on the type of novelties that are sought. Additionally, we find that autoencoders provide the most useful explanatory visualizations for enabling users to understand and trust model detections, and that existing GAN approaches to novelty detection may be limited in this respect.
Funder
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Computer Networks and Communications,Computer Science Applications,Information Systems
Reference112 articles.
1. Abadi M, Agarwal A, Barham P, Brevdo E, Chen Z, Citro C, Corrado G, Davis A, Dean J, Devin M, Ghemawat S, Goodfellow I, Harp A, Irving G, Isard M, Jia Y, Kaiser L, Kudlur M, Levenberg J, Man D, Monga R, Moore S, Murray D, Shlens J, Steiner B, Sutskever I, Tucker P, Vanhoucke V, Vasudevan V, Vinyals O, Warden P, Wicke M, Yu Y, Zheng X (2015) TensorFlow: Large-scale machine learning on heterogeneous distributed systems.
https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.3331
2. Abe N, Zadrozny B, Langford J (2006) Outlier detection by sampling with accuracy guarantees. In: ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining (KDD). pp 767–772.
https://doi.org/10.1145/1150402.1150501
3. Agyemang M, Barker K, Alhajj R (2006) A comprehensive survey of numeric and symbolic outlier mining techniques. Intell Data Anal 10(6):521–538.
https://doi.org/10.3233/IDA-2006-10604
4. Akcay S, Atapour-Abarghouei A, Breckon T (2018) GANomaly: Semi-supervised anomaly detection via adversarial training. In: Asian conference on computer vision (ACCV). pp 622–637
5. Alain G, Bengio Y (2014) What regularized auto-encoders learn from the data generating distribution. J Mach Learn Res 15:3743–3773
Cited by
24 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献