Comparing perturbation models for evaluating stability of neuroimaging pipelines. (September 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Kiar, Gregory; de Oliveira Castro, Pablo; Rioux, Pierre; Petit, Eric; Brown, Shawn T; Evans, Alan C; Glatard, Tristan
• Other Names: Mascagni Michael guest-editor.
• Is Part Of: International journal of high performance computing applications. Volume 34:Number 5(2020)
• Page Start: 491
• Page End: 501
• Publication Date: 2020-09
• Subjects: Neuroimaging -- diffusion MRI -- stability -- Monte Carlo Arithmetic; High performance computing -- Periodicals; Supercomputers -- Periodicals; 004.1105
• DOI: 10.1177/1094342020926237
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1094-3420

Abstract

With an increase in awareness regarding a troubling lack of reproducibility in analytical software tools, the degree of validity in scientific derivatives and their downstream results has become unclear. The nature of reproducibility issues may vary across domains, tools, data sets, and computational infrastructures, but numerical instabilities are thought to be a core contributor. In neuroimaging, unexpected deviations have been observed when varying operating systems, software implementations, or adding negligible quantities of noise. In the field of numerical analysis, these issues have recently been explored through Monte Carlo Arithmetic, a method involving the instrumentation of floating-point operations with probabilistic noise injections at a target precision. Exploring multiple simulations in this context allows the characterization of the result space for a given tool or operation. In this article, we compare various perturbation models to introduce instabilities within a typical neuroimaging pipeline, including (i) targeted noise, (ii) Monte Carlo Arithmetic, and (iii) operating system variation, to identify the significance and quality of their impact on the resulting derivatives. We demonstrate that even low-order models in neuroimaging such as the structural connectome estimation pipeline evaluated here are sensitive to numerical instabilities, suggesting that stability is a relevant axis upon which tools are compared, alongside more traditional criteria such as biological feasibility, computational efficiency, or, when possible, accuracy. Heterogeneity was observed across participants which clearly illustrates a strong interaction between the tool and data set being processed, requiring that the stability of a given tool be evaluated with respect to a given cohort. We identify use cases for each perturbation method tested, including quality assurance, pipeline error detection, and local sensitivity analysis, and make recommendations for the evaluation of stability in a practical and analytically focused setting. Identifying how these relationships and recommendations scale to higher order computational tools, distinct data sets, and their implication on biological feasibility remain exciting avenues for future work.