WIMP-nucleon cross-section results from the second science run of ZEPLIN-III

Abstract: We report experimental upper limits on WIMP-nucleon elastic scattering cross sections from the second science run of ZEPLIN-III at the Boulby Underground Laboratory. A raw fiducial exposure of 1,344 kg.days was accrued over 319 days of continuous operation between June 2010 and May 2011. A total of eight events was observed in the signal acceptance region in the nuclear recoil energy range 7-29 keV, which is compatible with background expectations. This allows the exclusion of the scalar cross-section above 4.8E-8 pb near 50 GeV/c^2 WIMP mass with 90% confidence. Combined with data from the first run, this result improves to 3.9E-8 pb. The corresponding WIMP-neutron spin-dependent cross-section limit is 8.0E-3 pb. The ZEPLIN programme reaches thus its conclusion at Boulby, having deployed and exploited successfully three liquid xenon experiments of increasing reach.

\section{Introduction}
\label{intro}

Direct, indirect and accelerator searches for neutralino dark matter
are now probing regions of parameter space favoured by minimal
supersymmetric (SUSY) extensions to the standard model, in particular
those constrained at the unification scale and by measurements of
cosmological cold dark matter abundance. SUSY is motivated by the need
to stabilise the weak scale, but it is remarkably persuasive that
$R$-parity conserving flavours of the theory lead to an excellent WIMP
dark matter candidate in the form of the lightest SUSY
particle. However, at a time when no evidence for SUSY has yet emerged
at the
LHC~\cite{atlas11,cms11,buchmueller11a,buchmueller11b,buchmueller11c},
it is worth noting that direct searches, such as the one reported
here, aim to detect any WIMP, not just neutralinos. Such experiments
exploit the possibility that WIMPs may scatter off ordinary baryonic
matter. The experimental challenge lies in conducting a rare event
search ($\lesssim$1~evt/kg/yr) whilst maintaining efficient detection
of very low energy signatures (few keV). Liquid xenon (LXe) is an
excellent target material for intermediate mass WIMPs due to its high
atomic mass and sensitivity in two response channels (scintillation
and ionisation). Significantly, these allow discrimination between
electron recoils resulting from radioactivity backgrounds and the
nuclear recoils expected from WIMP elastic scattering.

The ZEPLIN-III experiment operated at the Boulby laboratory (UK) under
a rock overburden of 2,850~m water equivalent. This two-phase xenon
emission detector measures both scintillation and ionisation responses
from particle interactions in its 12-kg LXe target. Approximately half
of this mass forms a `fiducial' region with well understood
performance and backgrounds.  The ionisation released at an
interaction site is drifted upward and emitted into a thin (few mm)
vapour phase above the liquid, where it is converted into an optical
signal via electroluminescence. This is achieved with a strong
electric field of 3--4~kV/cm in the liquid phase (approximately twice
as strong in the gas). An array of 31 photomultiplier tubes (PMTs) is
located within the cold liquid and views the 36.5-mm thick active
region above it. The array responds to the prompt scintillation and
the delayed electroluminescence signals (termed S1 and S2,
respectively). A detailed description of the detector design and
construction can be found in Refs.~\cite{akimov07,araujo06}. This time
projection chamber configuration allows very good position
reconstruction in three dimensions, as well as electron/nuclear recoil
discrimination which is critical for WIMP
searches~\cite{dolgoshein70,barabash89,bolozdynya95}.

The first science run (FSR) of the experiment in 2008 placed very
competitive upper limits on the WIMP-nucleon scattering cross sections
in several interaction models
\cite{lebedenko09a,lebedenko09b,akimov10a}. The FSR sensitivity was
limited by background originating from PMT $\gamma$-rays. In
particular, the most challenging event topology in ZEPLIN-III comes
from multiple-scintillation single-ionisation (MSSI) events, whereby a
single interaction vertex in the active region (producing both S1 and
S2) is accompanied by one or more scatters in a region yielding no
charge (S1 only). As the scintillation responses are effectively
time-coincident, S2/S1 ratios reconstructed for these $\gamma$-ray
events are essentially lower than typical for single-scatter electron
recoils, and they can leak down to the nuclear recoil acceptance
region. Nevertheless, we were able to achieve an average
electron/nuclear recoil discrimination power of 7,800:1 in the
2--16~keVee WIMP search region, which is the best reported for a LXe
detector (hereafter, `keVee' represents the electron-equivalent energy
as calibrated by 122~keV $^{57}$Co $\gamma$-rays and `keVr' denotes
nuclear recoil energy).

Two upgrades of the experiment had been planned from its
inception. The first was the replacement of the PMT array, which
dominated the $\gamma$-ray and neutron background budgets in the FSR
by a large factor. A new PMT model (ETEL D766Q~\cite{etel}) was
developed in collaboration with the manufacturers, which delivered a
40-fold improvement in $\gamma$-ray activity per unit. This allowed an
18-fold reduction in overall electron recoil background at low
energies relative to the FSR. In Ref.~\cite{araujo11} we analysed the
radioactivity backgrounds affecting the experiment in the second run
and showed that they were predicted with good
precision. Unfortunately, the optical and electrical performances of
the new PMTs were substantially poorer than those of the previous
tubes; worse still, the dispersion of gains and quantum efficiencies
(QE) posed very considerable problems to data analysis. Obtaining a
set of working PMTs and coping with this variability across the array
became the main challenge of the second run.

The second major upgrade was the addition of an anti-coincidence veto
system, which was retrofitted around the ZEPLIN-III
target~\cite{akimov10b,ghag11}. This 52-module plastic scintillator
detector envelops a Gd-loaded polypropylene shield ($\approx$3$\pi$
coverage) which provides moderation and radiative capture of internal
neutrons; the mean capture time is 10.7$\pm$0.5~$\mu$s. The assembly
fits inside the lead shield used in the FSR. The veto provides 60\%
tagging efficiency for internal neutrons, mostly derived from a
0.2--70~$\mu$s delayed coincidence window from the ZEPLIN-III trigger
point (58\%); elastic recoils in the plastic scintillator within a
narrow prompt window ($\pm$0.2~$\mu$s) make up the remaining neutron
efficiency. The tagging efficiency for $\gamma$-rays in the prompt
window was 28\%. Adding to its background rejection capability, this
tonne-scale detector provides a useful source of diagnostic for the
radiation environment around the instrument.

Minor upgrades were also implemented to aid with calibration of
ZEPLIN-III. The radioactive source delivery system was fully
automated. A copper structure (`phantom' grid) was installed above the
anode mirror; this cast a shadow from $^{57}$Co $\gamma$-rays onto the
LXe surface, thus providing calibration of the position reconstruction
algorithm. A new fibre-coupled LED light gun helped with calibration
of the PMT single photoelectron responses. All of the above upgrades
were manufactured from low background components.

\section{Second science run}
\label{SSR}

In the second science run (SSR), WIMP-search data were acquired over
319 days between 24$^{th}$ Jun 2010 and 7$^{th}$ May 2011, giving a
fiducial exposure of 1,344~kg$\cdot$days. A 20\% reduction from the
FSR fiducial mass to 5.1 kg was motivated by the poor performance of
peripheral PMTs. Even so, the SSR accumulated 3 times more exposure,
and achieved the longest continuous WIMP run of a xenon detector to
date. A daily operational duty cycle of 96\% was achieved
consistently, with 1~hr per day reserved for $^{57}$Co calibration and
cryogen re-filling; these tasks were automated and controlled
remotely. On a weekly basis, the system levelling was adjusted (to
compensate for local geological movement) and the target and veto PMTs
were calibrated with their respective fibre-coupled LED systems. The
gas phase was $\sim$3.5~mm thick and kept at 1.6~bar, with 13~mbar rms
variability within the dataset. The electric field in the liquid was
3.4~kV/cm. A free electron lifetime of 14~$\mu$s was achieved by prior
purification with a hot getter (comparable to the 13-$\mu$s drift time
for the deepest fiducial interactions). As observed in the FSR, the
lifetime increased steadily without external purification during the
run, and eventually reached $\sim$45~$\mu$s.

Data acquisition procedures were described with the FSR results
\cite{lebedenko09a} and we provide only a brief summary here. The
ZEPLIN-III trigger is derived from the 31-PMT sum signal; the SSR
hardware threshold corresponded to the electroluminescence of
$\approx$5 electrons; this translates to $\approx$10 ionisation
electrons in the liquid (average over fiducial interactions in the
dataset) when the finite electron lifetime and 66\% emission
probability at the surface are accounted for. Single emitted electrons
generate a mean response of 11.8$\pm$0.4 photoelectrons (phe); a study
of the single electron signature can be found in
Ref.~\cite{santos11}. This S2-derived signal also triggers the veto
data acquisition. The two data streams are recorded and reduced
separately, and synchronised offline. The ZEPLIN-III waveforms are
digitised at 500~MS/s for $\pm$18~$\mu$s around the trigger point. Key
detector and environmental data from the `slow control' acquisition
system were embedded into the main data.

\subsection{Data analysis}

Pulse-finding and parametrisation of the waveforms were carried out by
ZE3RA~\cite{neves11}, our event reduction software. The reduced data
were then searched for single scatter events (single S1 and S2 pulses)
which were retained for further analysis. Several corrections were
applied, mainly to the S2 response, based either on the slow-control
information embedded with each event, or on historical trends derived
from the daily calibration. The mean electron lifetime correction was
37\%, averaged over the fiducial dataset; also corrected were the
electronics gain drift (4.7\% rms), detector tilt (1.9\%) and pressure
variations (1.1\%).

A vertex reconstruction algorithm estimated the energy ($E$) and
position ($x$,$y$) of the interactions, with a maximum likelihood fit
to the S1 response and a least squares fit to the S2
channel~\cite{solovov11}. The algorithm fits to 31 empirical response
functions simultaneously. These model the response of a PMT as a
function of distance to its axis, and are derived from calibration
data in an iterative procedure which also `flat-fields' the array. The
spatial resolution thus achieved was 13~mm in S1 and 1.6~mm in S2
(FWHM) for the inner 100~mm radius. The ($E$,$x$,$y$) parameter space
was navigated with a {\em simplex} method to obtain the best fit point
for each event; spatial maps of likelihood and $\chi^2$ could also be
produced to help identify multiple vertices.

Finally, fiducialisation and quality cuts were applied to the data. A
central region of 140~mm radius containing 5.1~kg of LXe was
retained. The quality cuts eliminate likely MSSI events and outliers
in several parameters (e.g.~goodness-of-fit of S1 and S2
reconstructions). An S1 pulse timing cut was also used to exploit
modest pulse shape discrimination at the higher energies
~\cite{akimov02}. The inefficiencies incurred from these cuts are
described in the next section. Unsurprisingly, they are more severe
than had been required for FSR data.

A blind analysis was conducted during the initial optimisation of the
quality cuts and definition of the WIMP acceptance region: low energy
events in and around the signal region were kept hidden from
visualisation and reduction using a `blindness manager' implemented in
ZE3RA. Vetoed events (mostly $\gamma$-rays) were excluded from this
list, thus providing a (practically) signal-free population of
background events. This blind analysis was not pursued to its ultimate
conclusion but the acceptance region (which had been defined blindly)
was retained in order to avoid major bias in estimating a potential
signal.

\subsection{Calibration and efficiencies}

\begin{figure}[ht]
  \begin{center}
    \includegraphics[width=8.5cm,clip=on]{ambe_paper.eps}
  \end{center}
  \caption{\label{ambe} Discrimination parameter as a function of
  S1-derived energy for Am-Be neutron calibration. The recoil
  population median and $\pm$2-$\sigma$ lines are shown (in blue), along
  with the 2--12~keVee search box (dashed green).}
\end{figure}

Daily calibration with $^{57}$Co $\gamma$-rays (mostly 122~keV)
defined the S1 and S2 energy scales and monitored their stability
throughout the run; it also provided a regular measurement of the
detector tilt (through the spatial dependence of the S2 pulse width)
and of the free electron lifetime (by S2/S1 ratio with interaction
depth). The latter parameter was confirmed independently with a new
method based on single electron counting operating on the actual
science data waveforms~\cite{santos11}.

In the SSR the light yield of the chamber (fiducial average) was
1.3~phe/keVee, down from 1.8~phe/keVee in the FSR. The energy
resolution was similarly affected; a linear combination of S1 and S2
responses which exploits their microscopic anti-correlation yielded
16.4\% (FWHM) for the new array, against a very impressive 8.4\%
achieved for FSR data using the same analysis codes. In thin LXe
targets like ZEPLIN-III individual PMTs collect a large fraction of
the scintillation light of an event; the uniformity of response in the
array becomes therefore more critical than in high-reflectance
chambers with deeper geometries. In spite of this, a spatial
resolution of 1.6~mm (FWHM) in the horizontal plane was achieved in
the SSR, measured from the shadow pattern cast by the new phantom grid
for $^{57}$Co $\gamma$-rays~\cite{solovov11}.

The electron-recoil population was calibrated with a 4.6~kBq
$^{137}$Cs source located above the instrument, producing a rate of
150~c/s in the detector. The number of low-energy events thus obtained
was similar to that of background electron recoils in the search data.

Three neutron calibrations took place during SSR data-taking,
totalling 10~hours of exposure to an Am-Be ($\alpha,n$) source
emitting 1,321$\pm$14~n/s~\cite{NPL}; absolute differential rates of
nuclear recoils from elastic scatters agreed within statistical errors
for these datasets. The delayed-coincidence veto efficiency for such
events was 58\% independently of recoil energy~\cite{ghag11} (the
delayed detection is provided by $^{158}$Gd $\gamma$-rays rather than
by the neutrons directly). One such run is depicted in
Figure~\ref{ambe}. The recoil band populated by neutron elastic
scattering was parametrised by Gaussian fitting to the discrimination
parameter $\log_{10}$(S2/S1) in 1~keVee (S1) bins. Energy-dependent
mean ($\mu$) and width ($\sigma$) parameters were used to define a
signal acceptance region in the range 2--12~keVee and including
approximately the lower half of signal acceptance as indicated in the
same figure: from 2.3\% ($\mu-2\sigma$) to 45\%
($\mu-0.126\sigma$). This region was defined after a gradual
unblinding of surrounding data in the WIMP search dataset, with outer
regions progressively discarded and then opened for analysis as
`sidebands'.

\begin{figure}[ht]
  \begin{center}
    \includegraphics[width=8.0cm,clip=on]{efficiencies.eps}
  \end{center}
  \caption{\label{efficiency} Nuclear recoil efficiencies. Above:
relative scintillation efficiency for nuclear recoils in LXe at zero
electric field; the thick blue curve (adopted) combines the
measurements and uncertainties reported in Ref.~\cite{horn11} for FSR
data (68\% confidence region, in red) and SSR data (green). Below:
recoil detection efficiencies; $\eta$ subsumes a flat component
$\eta_0$=39.8\% (dominated by signal acceptance in S2/S1) and three
energy-dependent factors: $\eta_1$ is the S1 detection efficiency from
the 3-fold PMT coincidence required in software; $\eta_2$ is incurred
from quality cuts; $\eta_3$ relates to the timing cut on S1 pulses.}
\end{figure}

New measurements of the relative scintillation efficiency for nuclear
recoils in LXe ($L_{e\!f\!f}$) were derived from FSR and SSR
calibration data~\cite{horn11}. The decreasing $L_{e\!f\!f}$ curves
obtained therein were mutually consistent and agree, within
experimental errors, with recent neutron beam
data~\cite{manzur10,plante11}. For the purpose of converting between
electron and nuclear recoil energies we combined the two ZEPLIN-III
measurements into the curve shown in Figure~\ref{efficiency} (upper
panel). The SSR WIMP search region corresponds to 7.4--29~keVr.

The nuclear recoil detection efficiency comprises several
components. A set of constant factors combine to $\eta_0$=39.8\%,
including: DAQ livetime fraction (99.2\%), waveform quality cuts
(98.3\%), cuts on robustness of pulse parametrisation (96.9\%), veto
random coincidences (99.6\% and 99.0\% for the prompt and delayed
windows, respectively) and the above signal acceptance fraction
(42.7\%). Three additional curves, shown in Figure~\ref{efficiency}
(lower panel), describe the detection efficiency for S1 pulses (3-fold
requirement in software), the efficiency of the data quality cuts and
the additional timing cut on S1 signals for pulse shape
discrimination. The effective exposure for a 50~GeV/c$^2$ WIMP was
251~kg$\cdot$days.

\subsection{Experiment backgrounds}

Nuclear recoils from neutron single elastic scattering pose an
irreducible background to direct WIMP searches. In ZEPLIN-III,
detected radioactivity neutrons are most likely to arise in the
ceramic feedthroughs, the PMTs and the laboratory rock; muon-induced
neutrons contribute negligibly. The overall predicted rate is
3.05$\pm$0.5 events/year in 5--50~keVr assuming unity detection
efficiency, as detailed in Ref.~\cite{araujo11}. Translated to the SSR
effective exposure and search region this gives only
0.06$\pm$0.01~events in anti-coincidence with the veto.

A low-energy electron recoil background rate of 0.75~evts/kg/day/keVee
(`dru') was measured in the fiducial volume (with no quality cuts
applied), which represents a 20-fold reduction brought about by the
new phototubes. Monte Carlo predictions from a comprehensive inventory
of background sources, based on component-level radio-assays,
indicated 0.86$\pm$0.05~dru~\cite{araujo11}. Background electron
recoils are promptly tagged in the external veto with 28\% efficiency
below $\sim$100~keVee. This confirms that internal $\beta^-$ emitters
are insignificant, since the veto efficiency for coincident
$\gamma$-rays is practically identical to this value. Independently,
we measured the $^{85}$Kr decay rate at 7$\pm$2~mdru~\cite{araujo11}.

Assuming the discrimination factor achieved in the first run,
electron-recoil event leakage into the WIMP acceptance region should
represent $<$1~event, in line with the aspiration of a background-free
second run which motivated the experiment upgrades. However, analysis
of the prompt-vetoed $\gamma$-rays revealed that this was unlikely to
be the case. Background predictions (discussed below) based on
extrapolation of the electron recoil population into the signal box
and from low-energy $^{137}$Cs data indicated that a handful of
unvetoed events (7--9) were expected, confirming a loss of
discrimination power.

\section{WIMP-search results}
\label{results}

Upon unblinding, 12 events were observed in the acceptance region. A
detailed waveform inspection revealed larger than expected cross-talk
artifacts due to the poor electrical performance of the SSR PMTs:
gains differed by as much as 100 times within the array, and the extra
amplification required in some channels exposed contamination from the
higher gain channels (the array is powered by a single HV supply using
common dynode electrodes internally). Tighter cuts on the
goodness-of-fit of the reconstructed vertex were required to deal with
this issue (Figure~\ref{efficiency} already reflects this). The result
of the final (non-blind) analysis is shown in
Figure~\ref{scatter}. Eight events remained in the box. The event
reconstructed at 3.2~keVee in S1 and 1.1~keVee in S2 appears far below
the mean $\log_{10}$(S2/S1) for typical electron recoils with that S1
signal, but this is not necessarily anomalous: a median S2 signal of
1.1~keVee corresponds to electron recoils with only 0.6~keVee in S1
(cf.~yellow line in Figure~\ref{scatter}). Given 1.3~phe/keVee
scintillation yield, 0.8\% of all events with that S1 expected would
generate $\ge$4~phe due to Poisson fluctuation, thereby producing the
observed $\log_{10}$(S2/S1) ratio or lower. Considering the detected
rate of electron recoils, one such low-lying event is consistent with
background.

\begin{table*}[ht]
\begin{center}
\caption{Observations ($n_{obs}$), background estimates ($\mu_{b1,2}$)
and limits on the signal expectation ($\mu_s$) for the first (FSR) and
second (SSR) runs of ZEPLIN-III. Fiducial and net effective exposures
(50~GeV/c$^2$ WIMP) are presented along with relevant signal
acceptance parameters. Electron recoil background expectations are
estimated from Skew-Gaussian (SG) fits to data above the search region
in 2~keVee bins and also from $^{137}$Cs calibration. The 90\% CL
limit on the number of signal events in each run is derived with the
Profile Likelihood Ratio method.}
    \begin{tabular}{cccc|c|c|cc|c}
    \hline \hline
    run & kg$\cdot$days & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{acceptance} & $n_{obs}$ &
    neutrons & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{electron recoils, $\mu_{b2}$} & $\mu_s$ \\
    &  (net)      & keVr & fraction & & $\mu_{b1}$ & SG fit & Cs-137 & 90\% CL\\
    \hline
    FSR & 437.0   & 7--35 & 29--50\% & 4 & 0.5$\pm$0.3  & 5.2$\pm$3.1 & -- & $<$4.2\\
        & (107.3) &       &  2--29\% & 1 & 0.7$\pm$0.3  & 1.5$\pm$1.7 & -- &     \\
    \hline
    SSR & 1,343.8 & 7--29 & 24--45\% & 7 & 0.03$\pm$0.005& 5.5$\pm$2.2 & 8.3$\pm$2.9 & $<$5.1\\
        & (251.0) &       &  2--24\% & 1 & 0.03$\pm$0.005& 1.0$\pm$1.2 & 1.0$\pm$1.0 &     \\
    \hline \hline
    \end{tabular}
  \end{center}
\end{table*}

No {\em delayed} coincidences were recorded below the nuclear recoil
median and those registered above it are statistically consistent with
random coincidences. This allows us to set an upper limit of 0.75
neutron events for the search region (90\% CL), confirming the
successful mitigation of the neutron background. Two methods were used
to predict counts from electron recoil backgrounds; both are in good
agreement with the observation, suggesting no significant
signal. Binned Skew-Gaussian (SG) fits to the $\log_{10}$(S2/S1)
parameter above the search region, as in the FSR
analysis~\cite{lebedenko09a}, predict a total of 6.5$\pm$3.4 events
(cf. 8 observed). $^{137}$Cs calibration data provided independent
confirmation of this background within the available accuracy, with no
contamination from signal and no assumption of a functional dependence
for electron recoils; this yielded 9 events for 96\% equivalent
exposure.

To account for non-uniform background in $\log_{10}$(S2/S1) we
partitioned the search region in two; this was done explicitly to
maximise sensitivity given the SG background distributions. Note that
the contents of the search region were {\em not} considered in this
optimisation. To achieve this the partition was incremented
systematically and the background distribution was sampled by Monte
Carlo under the null hypothesis; the best sensitivity, calculated by
the Feldman-Cousins (FC) method~\cite{feldman98}, is reached at 24\%
acceptance. The observations in the resulting bins were seven and one
events, as shown in Figure~\ref{scatter} (lower). Table~1 confronts
observations and background estimates for the partitioned search
region.

Reanalysis of FSR data with updated SSR software, motivated by the new
$L_{e\!f\!f}$ measurements of Ref.~\cite{horn11}, revealed five events
in the FSR search region (which we kept unchanged from the original
analysis). Background expectations from SG fitting to these data are
also presented in Table~1. In this instance the $^{137}$Cs calibration
over-predicted the observations very significantly, which may be
caused by rate-dependent photocathode charging effects in this (FSR)
run~\cite{araujo04} or other systematic differences between the two
calibrations. We consider, however, that the SG function provides an
appropriate description of our background as validated by the SSR
$^{137}$Cs calibration. Once the non-negligible neutron contribution
is included, the FSR prediction is 7.9$\pm$4.8 (cf. 5 observed). The
same data-blind optimisation procedure led to a partition at 29\%; in
this run one event was just below that division in $\log_{10}$(S2/S1),
at 28.8\% acceptance.

\subsection{Signal inference}

A confidence interval for the signal expectation ($\mu_s$) in the SSR
acceptance region was obtained with a Profile Likelihood Ratio (PLR)
method which accounts for the uncertainty in the background
predictions (see, e.g.~\cite{sen09,rolke05}). We included estimators
of the nuisance parameter $\mu_{b2}$ from both the SG fits and the
$^{137}$Cs calibration; the latter is Poisson distributed and the SG
predictions are treated as Gaussian truncated at zero. The
distribution of profile likelihood ratio was determined by Monte Carlo
to ensure correct statistical coverage. The double-sided 90\% CL
interval for $\mu_s$ was $0-5.1$~events. The same procedure applied to
FSR data (without a $^{137}$Cs prediction in this instance) yielded
$0-4.2$~events with 90\% confidence.

These results are quite robust with respect to the particular choice
of binning and test statistic. For example, we conducted two-bin FC
calculations with background predictions capped at observation when
$\mu_b \!>\! n_{obs}$ (so as not to benefit from downward fluctuations
of background) and using a 10\% acceptance upper bin (as in the
original FSR analysis~\cite{lebedenko09a}). This yielded the same 4.2
events at 90\% CL for the first run and 4.8 for the SSR. These are
reassuringly close to the PLR results in Table~1, which treat
background uncertainties more formally.

\begin{figure}[ht]
  \begin{center}
    \includegraphics[width=8.0cm,clip=on]{scatter_paper.eps}\\
    \includegraphics[width=8.0cm,clip=on]{percentiles_paper.eps}
  \end{center}
  \caption{\label{scatter} Above: fiducial events in full SSR
    exposure. Green markers label prompt veto coincidences (mostly
    $\gamma$-rays); events in the delayed window (mostly accidental
    coincidences) are in red. There are 8 unvetoed events in the WIMP
    acceptance region. The dashed lines show the nuclear and electron
    recoil band medians (in blue and yellow, respectively). Below:
    Distribution in signal acceptance (recoils from WIMPs and neutrons
    are distributed uniformly in the $y$-axis). There were seven (one)
    events in the upper (lower) region.}
\end{figure}

Experimental upper limits on the scalar WIMP-nucleon elastic cross
section are shown in Figure~\ref{limit_si}, calculated with the
standard galactic halo model ($\rho_o$=0.3~GeV/c$^2$/cm$^3$,
$v_o$=220~km/s, $v_{e\!s\!c}$=544~km/s, and $v_{E}$=232~km/s)~and the
Helm form factor~\cite{helm56} parametrised in Ref.~\cite{lewin96}. A
minimum cross-section limit of 8.4$\times$10$^{-8}$~pb (90\% CL,
double sided) is reached at 55~GeV/c$^2$ WIMP mass for the FSR
(similar to the original result \cite{lebedenko09a} and slightly lower
than the result reported in Ref.~\cite{horn11} from a single-sided
`maximum patch' test statistic~\cite{henderson08}). The minimum of the
SSR curve is 4.8$\times$10$^{-8}$~pb, reached at
51~GeV/c$^2$. Adopting $L_{e\!f\!f}$ curves at the $\pm$1$\sigma$
levels from Figure~\ref{efficiency} does not affect the result at
curve minimum significantly, but the value at $10$~GeV/$c^2$ mass
varies in the range (2.2--9.3)$\times$10$^{-6}$~pb.

The combined result for the ZEPLIN-III experiment with mean
$L_{e\!f\!f}$, obtained from a four-bin PLR calculation which returns
$\mu_s$$<$6.0 events for the aggregate exposure, is also shown in the
figure; the curve minimum is 3.9$\times$10$^{-8}$~pb at 52~GeV/c$^2$.

Excellent sensitivity to spin-dependent WIMP-neutron interactions is
afforded by the odd-neutron isotopes $^{129}$Xe and $^{131}$Xe. The
spin-dependent result is calculated as described in
Ref.~\cite{lebedenko09b}, accounting for the composition of our xenon
(depleted in $^{136}$Xe) and using Bonn-CD nucleon-nucleon
potentials. The FSR+SSR combined curve, shown in
Figure~\ref{limit_sd}, has a minimum of 8.0$\times$10$^{-3}$~pb at
50~GeV/c$^2$ mass. At the time of writing there is no corresponding
result from XENON100; this is expected to be a few times lower. The
original XENON10 result \cite{angle08} is not shown in the figure
since this had assumed a constant scintillation efficiency and the
more favourable ($\sim$2) Bonn~A potential; a fair comparison would
raise this result to above the ZEPLIN-III curve.

\begin{figure}[ht]
  \begin{center}
  \includegraphics[width=8.5cm,clip=on]{limitSI_paper.eps}
  \end{center}
  \caption{\label{limit_si} 90\%-CL limits on WIMP-nucleon
  spin-independent cross sections from ZEPLIN-III (FSR, SSR and
  combined) and from XENON100~\cite{aprile11}, XENON10 (low energy
  analysis \cite{angle11}), CDMS-II~\cite{ahmed10b} and
  EDELWEISS-II~\cite{armengaud11}. Previous results from the ZEPLIN
  programme are also indicated~\cite{alner05,alner07a}.  In blue we
  represent the 3- and 5-$\sigma$ DAMA/LIBRA contours (2008 data, no
  ion channelling~\cite{barnabei08}) interpreted in
  Ref.~\cite{savage09}. The magenta contour is the fit to CoGeNT data
  under the light WIMP hypothesis~\cite{aalseth11}; in cyan is the
  2-$\sigma$ region from CRESST-II~\cite{angloher11}. The crosses are
  the original SUSY benchmark points~\cite{ellis02}. Favoured regions
  of parameter space from a 2008 Bayesian analysis in
  mSUGRA~\cite{trotta08} and the likelihood analysis of LHC data
  within cMSSM~\cite{buchmueller11a} are also shown.}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure}[ht]
  \begin{center}
  \includegraphics[width=8.5cm,clip=on]{limitSD_paper.eps}
  \end{center}
  \caption{\label{limit_sd} Limits on spin-dependent WIMP-neutron
   cross section (assuming no proton interaction) from ZEPLIN-III
   (FSR+SSR, with Bonn~CD potentials~\cite{toivanen08}) as well as
   CDMS-II (2004-09 data~\cite{ahmed09,ahmed10b} plus low-energy (LE)
   analysis~\cite{ahmed11}), ZEPLIN-I~\cite{alner05b} and
   ZEPLIN-II~\cite{alner07b}. Also shown is the 3-$\sigma$ DAMA
   evidence region (2008 data, no ion channelling~\cite{barnabei08})
   interpreted in Ref.~\cite{savage09}. The green hatched area is the
   tip of the 95\% probability region for cMSSM
   neutralinos~\cite{roszkowski07}.}
\end{figure}

\section{Conclusion}
\label{conclusions}

In this article we presented experimental upper limits on WIMP-nucleon
elastic scattering cross sections from the second run of ZEPLIN-III at
Boulby. These were derived from analysis of 1,344~kg$\cdot$days of
fiducial exposure acquired between June 2010 and May 2011. A 90\% CL
upper limit on the signal content from this exposure allows the
exclusion of a scalar WIMP scattering cross section above
4.8$\times$10$^{-8}$~pb/nucleon near 50~GeV/c$^2$ mass. The combined
result for the two runs constrains the scalar cross section to
3.9$\times$10$^{-8}$~pb and the WIMP-neutron spin-dependent cross
section to 8.0$\times$10$^{-3}$~pb. Along with
XENON100~\cite{aprile11}, XENON10~\cite{angle11},
CDMS-II~\cite{ahmed10b} and EDELWEISS-II~\cite{armengaud11} these
results disfavour an interpretation of DAMA in terms of nuclear
recoils from WIMPs as well as recent results from CRESST-II under the
canonical dark halo~\cite{angloher11}. Models favoured by CoGeNT
\cite{aalseth11} are harder to rule out completely from our data.

This second run followed the upgrade of the experiment with a new
array of purpose-developed, low-radioactivity PMTs, a veto detector
based on Gd-loaded polypropylene and plastic scintillator, and new
calibration hardware. The automation of the system enabled a 319-day
run with excellent stability and reduced manpower underground.

The new photomultipliers were a critical item to reach the design
sensitivity of 1$\times$10$^{-8}$~pb$\cdot$year. Although their
radiological background was excellent (35--50~mBq/PMT), their
performance compromised the experimental sensitivity by a factor of
$\sim$4 (from reduction in fiducial mass, of signal acceptance
fraction, of cut efficiency and from poorer
discrimination). Electron-recoil leakage to below the nuclear recoil
median had been 7,800:1 in the FSR compared to only 280:1 in the SSR;
no other significant changes were made to the internal hardware.

The addition of a new veto detector proved very valuable, confirming
negligible neutron background and providing a useful unbiased sample
of $\gamma$-ray background for open analysis. In our experience,
high-efficiency veto systems will be extremely important in future
experiments, from the point of view of background reduction,
diagnostics and enhancing their discovery power~\cite{ghag11}.

ZEPLIN-III concludes a successful series of three different LXe-based
experiments operated at Boulby since the mid 1990s, with progressively
stronger electric fields applied to their active targets. ZEPLIN-I
exploited pulse shape discrimination at zero field and produced
world-leading results~\cite{alner05,alner05b}. Delivering 1~kV/cm to
the liquid target, ZEPLIN-II was the first two-phase xenon WIMP
detector in the world~\cite{alner07a,alner07b}. ZEPLIN-III operated at
nearly 4~kV/cm in the first run and achieved the best discrimination
of any xenon detector, along with competitive WIMP results in
general. As several systems are now being designed and constructed
around the world with tonne-scale fiducial masses, the ZEPLIN
programme can claim to have pioneered some of the techniques that
helped two-phase xenon become a leading technology in the race to
discover WIMPs.

\section{Acknowledgements}

The UK groups acknowledge support from the Science \& Technology
Facilities Council (STFC) for the ZEPLIN-III project and for operation
of the Boulby laboratory. LIP-Coimbra acknowledges financial support
from Funda\c{c}\~{a}o para a Ci\^encia e a Tecnologia (FCT) through
project grant CERN/FP/116374/2010 and postdoctoral grants
SFRH/BPD/27054/2006, /47320/2008, /63096/2009 and /73676/2010. ITEP
acknowledge support from the Russian Foundation of Basic Research
(grant 08-02-91851 KO\_a) and SC Rosatom (H.4e.45.90.11.1059 from
10.03.2011). We are also grateful for support provided jointly to ITEP
and Imperial from the UK Royal Society. ZEPLIN-III was hosted by
Cleveland Potash Ltd at the Boulby Mine and we thank CPL management
and staff for their long-standing support. We also express our
gratitude to the Boulby facility staff for their dedication. The
University of Edinburgh is a charitable body registered in Scotland
(SC005336).

\bibliographystyle{elsarticle-num}

Cosmology and Nongalactic Astrophysics (astro-ph.CO); High Energy Physics - Experiment (hep-ex)


Learning to detect chest radiographs containing lung nodules using visual attention networks

Abstract: Machine learning approaches hold great potential for the automated detection of lung nodules in chest radiographs, but training the algorithms requires vary large amounts of manually annotated images, which are difficult to obtain. Weak labels indicating whether a radiograph is likely to contain pulmonary nodules are typically easier to obtain at scale by parsing historical free-text radiological reports associated to the radiographs. Using a repositotory of over 700,000 chest radiographs, in this study we demonstrate that promising nodule detection performance can be achieved using weak labels through convolutional neural networks for radiograph classification. We propose two network architectures for the classification of images likely to contain pulmonary nodules using both weak labels and manually-delineated bounding boxes, when these are available. Annotated nodules are used at training time to deliver a visual attention mechanism informing the model about its localisation performance. The first architecture extracts saliency maps from high-level convolutional layers and compares the estimated position of a nodule against the ground truth, when this is available. A corresponding localisation error is then back-propagated along with the softmax classification error. The second approach consists of a recurrent attention model that learns to observe a short sequence of smaller image portions through reinforcement learning. When a nodule annotation is available at training time, the reward function is modified accordingly so that exploring portions of the radiographs away from a nodule incurs a larger penalty. Our empirical results demonstrate the potential advantages of these architectures in comparison to competing methodologies.

\section{Introduction}

	{L}ung cancer is the most common cancer worldwide and the second most common cancer in Europe and the USA \citep{Ferlay20131374,cancerUS}. Due to delays in diagnosis, it is typically discovered at an advanced stage with a very low survival rate \citep{cancerUK}. The chest radiograph is the most commonly performed radiological investigation in the initial assessment of suspected lung cancer because it is inexpensive and delivers a low radiation dose. On a chest radiograph, a nodule is defined as a rounded opacity $ \leq $ $3$cm, which can be well- or poorly marginated. The detection of lesions $ \geq $ 3cm do not typically pose a diagnostic challenge \citep{samRefB}. However, detecting small pulmonary nodules on plain film is challenging, even despite high spatial resolution because an x-ray is a single projection of the entire 3D thorax volume. The planar nature of radiograph acquisition means that thoracic structures are superimposed, thus, the heart, diaphragm, and mediastinum may obscure a large portion of the lungs. Patients may also have several co-existing pathologies visible on each	 radiograph. Many benign lesions can mimic a pathology, due to composite shadowing, and, furthermore, the nodule can be very small or with ill-defined margins. Studies have shown that in up to 40\% of new lung cancer diagnoses, the lesion was present on previous plain film, but was missed and only picked up in hindsight \citep{forrest1981radiologic,samRefC}.

	Computer-aided detection (CAD) systems using machine learning techniques can facilitate the automated detection of lung nodules and provide a cost-effective {second-opinion reporting mechanism}. The reported performance of these CAD systems varies substantially depending on the size and nature of the samples. For instance, sensitivity rates reported in the literature for lesions larger than $5$mm vary from $51\%$-$71\%$  \citep{moore2011sensitivity, szucs2013comparison}. Currently, state-of-the-art results for automated object detection in images are obtained by deep convolutional neural networks (DCNN). During training, these methods require a large number of manually annotated images in which the contours of each object are identified or, at the very least, have a bounding box indicating their location within the image. The large majority of these methods use regression models to predict the coordinates of the bounding boxes \citep{Erhan2014, Szegedy13} or, alternatively, make use of sliding windows \citep{RenHG015, sermanet2014overfeat}. Most documented studies rely on large datasets of natural images ~\citep{Everingham2010,LinMBHPRDZ14} where the objects to be detected are typically well-defined and sufficiently within the context of the entire image. Fundamentally, the applicability of these technologies in radiology has not been fully explored, partially due to the paucity of large databases of annotated medical images.

	%
	In recent years, {the increasing availability of digital archiving and reporting systems, such as PACS (Picture Archiving and Communication System) and RIS (Radiology Information System), is laying the technological foundations needed to make available large volumes of clinical data and images from hospital archives \citep{cho2015much, DBLP:journals/corr/CornegrutaBWM16}.}
	%
	In this study, our aim is to leverage a large number of radiological exams extracted from a hospital's data archives to explore the feasibility of deep learning for lung nodule detection. In particular, we assess the performance of a statistical classifier that discriminates between chest radiographs with {elements/regions} indicating the presence of a pulmonary lesion and those that do not. Our first hypothesis is that, with a sufficiently large training database, a classifier based on deep convolutional networks can be trained to accomplish this task using only weak image labels. In order to address our hypothesis, we collected over $700,000$ historical chest radiographs from two large teaching hospitals in London (UK). A natural language processing (NLP) system was developed to parse all free-text radiological reports to identify all the exams containing pulmonary lesions. This is a challenging learning task as a proportion of automatically-extracted labels in the training dataset is expected to be erroneous or incomplete due to reporting errors or omissions (estimated to be at least $3$-$5\%$ \citep{Brady17}), inter-reader variability \citep{Elmore94,Elmore15} and potential NLP failures.  The performance of the resulting image classifier was assessed using a manually curated, independent dataset of over $6,000$ exams.

	Our second and main {hypothesis} is that significant classification improvements can be obtained by augmenting the weak and potentially noisy labels by using bounding boxes to indicate the exact location of any lesions in a subset of the training exams. Manual annotation  simply does not scale well given the size of currently available historical datasets; realistically only a fraction of all the exams can be reviewed and annotated. It would be, therefore, of interest to design a classifier that leverages both weakly labelled and annotated images. To investigate this hypothesis, approximately {$9\%$} of the radiographs presenting lesions were randomly selected and reviewed by a radiologist who manually delineated the bounding boxes. This annotation process resulted in over $3,000$ lesion examples.

	We present two different learning strategies to leverage both weak labels and the annotations of lesions. Our guiding principle was that, when the position of a lesion is known during training, it can be exploited to provide the network with visual feedback that can inform on the quality of the features learned by the convolutional filters.  As such, both strategies introduce attention mechanisms within the classifier in order to learn improved imaging representations. Our first approach exploits a {\it soft attention mechanism}. Using weakly-labelled images, a convolutional network learns imaging features by minimising the classification error and generates saliency maps highlighting parts of an image that are likely to contain a lesion. Using the subset of annotated images, a composite loss function is employed to penalise the discrepancy between the network's implied position of a lesion, provided by the saliency map during training and the real position of the lesion. A large loss indicates that the network's current representation does not accurately capture the lesion's visual patterns, and provides an additional mechanism for self-improvement through back-propagation. The resulting architecture, a convolutional neural network with attention feedback (CONAF), features an improved localisation capability, which, in turn, {boosts} the classification performance.

	\begin{figure*}[t!]
		\centering

		\vspace*{1mm}
		\begin{minipage}[b]{.30\textwidth}
			\centering
			\includegraphics[width=0.90\linewidth]{RJ107702721.pdf}
			\captionsetup{labelformat=empty}
		\end{minipage}%
		\begin{minipage}[b]{.30\textwidth}
			\centering
			\includegraphics[width=0.90\linewidth]{RJ108378170.pdf}
			\captionsetup{labelformat=empty}
		\end{minipage}
		\begin{minipage}[b]{.30\textwidth}
			\centering
			\includegraphics[width=0.90\linewidth]{RJ107879083.pdf}
			\captionsetup{labelformat=empty}
		\end{minipage}%

		\vspace{1mm}

		\begin{minipage}[b]{.30\textwidth}
			\centering
			\includegraphics[width=0.90\linewidth]{RJ107702721_02_.pdf}
			\captionsetup{labelformat=empty}
		\end{minipage}%
		\begin{minipage}[b]{.30\textwidth}
			\centering
			\includegraphics[width=0.90\linewidth]{RJ108378170_02_.pdf}
			\captionsetup{labelformat=empty}
		\end{minipage}%
		\begin{minipage}[b]{.30\textwidth}
			\centering
			\includegraphics[width=0.90\linewidth]{RJ107879083_02_.pdf}
			\captionsetup{labelformat=empty}
		\end{minipage}%

		\caption{Three examples (one per column) of successfully detected lung lesions on chest radiographs using CONAF {(convolutional neural network with attention feedback)}. The first row contains the original chest radiographs and the second one the probability heatmaps generated by CONAF along with the ground truth bounding boxes drawn in white by the radiologists. The heatmaps indicate the likely position of a lesion; high probability regions are in red and low probability regions are in blue.}
		\label{fig:results_intro}
	\end{figure*}

	Our second approach implements a {\it hard attention mechanism}, and specifically an extension of the Recurrent Attention Model (RAM)~\citep{BaMK14, Mnih14, SermanetFR14, Ypsilantis17}. In contrast to CONAF, each image is processed in a finite number of sequential steps. At each step, only at a portion of the image is used as input; each location is sampled from a probability distribution that leverages the knowledge acquired in the previous steps. The information accumulated through a random path image culminates in the classification of the image. The classification score acts as a reward signal which, in turn, updates the probability distribution controlling the sequence of image locations that should be visited. This results in more precise attention being paid to the most relevant parts of the image, i.e. the lungs. Our proposed architecture, RAMAF (Recurrent Attention Model with Attention Feedback), rewards a higher classification score when the {\it glimpses} attended by the algorithms during training overlap with the correct lesion locations. Establishing this improves the rate of learning, yielding a faster convergence rate and increased classification performance.

	The article is structured as follows. In Section~\ref{sec:data}, we introduce the dataset used in our experiments and explain how the chest radiographs have been automatically labelled using a natural language processing system. The CONAF and RAMAF algorithms are presented in Sections~\ref{sec:firstmodel} and \ref{sec:secondmodel}, respectively. Their performance has been assessed and compared to a number of alternative architectures that use either weak labels or annotated images. In Section \ref{sec:results}, we describe our experimental results supporting the hypothesis that leveraging a relatively small portion of manually annotated lesions, in addition to a large sample of weakly-annotated training examples, can drastically enhance the classification performance.

	\section{A repository of chest radiographs} \label{sec:data}

	For this study, we obtained a dataset consisting of $745,479$ chest x-ray exams collected from the historical archives of Guy's and St. Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust in London from January $2005$ to March $2016$.  For each exam, the free-text radiologist report was extracted from the RIS (Radiology Information System). For a subset of  $634,781$ exams, we were also able to obtain the DICOM files containing pixel data. All paediatric exams ($ \leq 16$ years of age) were removed from the dataset resulting in a total of $430,067$ exams for which {both images and radiological reports were available}. DICOM headers and any reports were data anonymised and an ethics committee waiver of consent was granted for the study. {The size of original radiographs ranged between $734 \times 734$ to $4400 \times 4400$ pixels}, so we scaled each image to a standard size of $448 \times 448$ to keep the computational requirements to a sustainable level, but otherwise no other preprocessing was carried out.

	The radiological reports were used as the ground truth to determinate whether any chest radiograph in our database contained evidence of a suspected lung lesion. For this study, we tagged each exam using three mutually exclusive labels: (a) {\it normal}, i.e. exams presenting no radiological abnormalities; (b) {\it lesions}, i.e. exams reported as presenting at least a focal lesion; (c) {\it others}, i.e. exams that are not normal, but do not contain a pulmonary lesion.  The labelling task was automated by using an extension of an NLP system originally developed for the detection of clinical findings from radiological reports \citep{DBLP:journals/corr/CornegrutaBWM16}; an overview of the NLP system and its associated validation study can be found in \ref{appendix:nlp}. The NLP system identified $101,766$ normal exams, $23,132$ exams containing at least one lesion and $305,169$ exams having radiological abnormalities, other than suspected lesions.

	The most common appearances of a pulmonary nodule is that of a small, rounded opacity within the lung. However, lesions can be solid, semi-solid or groundglass; well- or ill-defined; single or multiple; and can occur anywhere in the lung. On radiograph, they can overlap with the ribs, the mediastinum, the diaphragm, or the heart. According to accepted nomenclature, a nodule is $<3$cm; a mass is $\geq 3$cm, although for this study we have used the term \emph{lesion} to include both criteria \citep{samRefB}. With the aim of improving the sensitivity of the detection of lung tumours on chest x-rays, the CAD system was trained and then tested on radiographs that reported a possible pulmonary lesion, not just those cases with CT (computed tomography) or {hystopathological confirmation} of cancer. Amongst all the $23,132$ {images} containing lesions in our database, $2,196$ were manually annotated by an experienced radiologist resulting in $ 3,253 $ annotated lesions (see also Section \ref{sec:noduleclassificationperfomance}).  A bounding box was drawn around each lesion within each image; see Fig. \ref{fig:results_intro} for some examples. The approximate size of a lesion was measured by taking the longest side of the bounding box in millimeters. This measurement only provides an upper bound of the real nodule's size; Fig. \ref{fig:hist_bb} shows the frequency distribution of lesions {diameters}.

	\begin{figure}[t!]
		\centering
		\includegraphics[scale=0.30]{nodule_distribution_mm.pdf}
		\caption{Frequency distribution of lesion size across all the annotated images; the size is measured in millimeters and represents the maximal width of the bounding box.}
		\label{fig:hist_bb}
	\end{figure}

	\section{Proposed architectures}

	\subsection{Convolution networks with attention feedback (CONAF)} \label{sec:firstmodel}

	In this section we set out our proposal of an image classifier based on deep convolutional neural networks. Our aim is to detect chest radiographs that are likely to contain one or more lesions. Although the localisation of the lesions within an image is not our primary interest, this information can be extracted from a trained network to generate saliency maps, i.e. heatmaps indicating where the lesions are more likely to be located within the original x-ray.  Our proposed architecture exploits these maps to introduce a soft attention mechanism. For radiographs containing annotations, the saliency maps can be compared against the ground truth (the bounding box drawn by radiologist) to derive a localisation error. Although this additional error term can only be computed for a subset of images during training time, it provides useful feedback about the most likely inferred position of a lesion at any given time, and this information can be leveraged to further decrease the classification error.

	All the available radiographs are collected in a set $\mathcal{X}^{(w)} = \{\textbf{x}_i \in \mathbb{R}^{448\times448}; i=1, \ldots, N_w \}$ with corresponding labels in $\mathcal{Y}^{(w)} = \{ y_i \in \{0,1,2\}; i=1, \ldots, N_w \}$. In our dataset, $N_w=430,067$. A label $y_i=0$ indicates that the exam has been reported as normal (i.e. there are no radiological abnormalities) whereas $y_i=1$ indicates the presence of one or more lesions and $y_i=2$ refers to other reported abnormalities other than pulmonary lesions. {All the images which contain lesions that have been annotated with bounding boxes are collected in a subset}  $\mathcal{X}^{(b)} \subset \mathcal{X}^{(w)}$, which has cardinality $N_b < N_w$. In our dataset, $N_b=2,196$. The corresponding bounding box annotations are collected in a set of binary masks, $\mathcal{B}^{(b)} =  \{ \mathbf{b}_i \in \{ 0,1 \}^{448 \times 448}; i=1, \ldots, N_b \}$ with ones indicating pixels belonging to a lesion and zeros being background pixels.

	Our proposed architecture is presented in Fig. \ref{fig:arch1}. It relies upon three building blocks: a convolutional neural network for feature extraction and two separate components used for classification and localisation. The feature extraction block takes $\textbf{x}_i$ as input and consists of a sequence of convolutional layers and max-pooling layers. Our implementation here is similar to the commonly used VGG13 \citep{simonyan2014very}, which has proven reliable in our studies.
	{The last layer terminates with $512 \times28\times28$ feature maps which contain high-level representation of the input image and are used as inputs for both the classification and localisation components. After performing a global max pooling operation which outputs $512$ units, the classification branch consists of two layers ($512 \mapsto 256 $ and $ 256 \mapsto 2$ ) of $1 \times 1$ convolutions (equivalent to fully connected layers) inferring the probability that the input image is assigned to a class.}
	We considered two different binary classification problems: a simplified one, where those x-rays presenting with lesions are compared to those without any radiological abnormalities, i.e. {\it Lesion vs. Normal}, and a realistic one, {\it Lesion} vs. everything else (i.e. the union of {\it Normal} and {\it Others}). The latter is significantly more challenging as the {\it Others} class contains a very large number of radiological abnormalities, some of which often co-exist with the lesions observed in the {\it Lesion} class.

	The input for this branch consists of all images in $\mathcal{X}^{(w)}$. All shared weights for feature extraction and the weights which are specific to the classification branch are collected in a parameter vector $\pmb{\theta}_c$, which is optimised by minimising the binary cross-entropy loss,
	\begin{equation*} \label{eq:hc}
	H_c(\pmb{\theta}_c) = - \frac{1}{N_w}\sum\limits_{i=1}^{N_w}[y_i \log(\hat{y}_i)+(1-y_i) \log(1-\hat{y}_i)]
	\end{equation*}
	where $\hat{y}_i $ is the predicted class.
	\begin{figure*}[t!]
		\centering
		\includegraphics[scale=0.60]{./localization_classification_network_v8.pdf}
		\caption{An illustration of the CONAF model. Both the classifier and localizer receive as input the output of the Feature Extraction CNN. The localisation loss function $H_{l}$ and the classification loss function $H_{c}$ are linearly combined to form the hybrid loss function $H$.}
		\label{fig:arch1}
	\end{figure*}

	The images in $\mathcal{X}^{(b)}$ contribute towards a second loss term, which is computed by the localisation component consisting of a series of two layers performing $1 \times 1$ convolutions {($512\times28\times28 \mapsto 256\times28\times28$ and $256\times28\times28 \mapsto 1\times28\times28$)}. The output is passed through a sigmoid function to produce a scoremap $\phi(\textbf{x}_i) \in [0,1]^{28\times28}$ used to infer the position of lesions within the image. Values away from zero and closer to one indicate that the corresponding pixels are likely to contain a lesion. Our rationale here consists of comparing a scoremap with the associated ground-truth binary mask, $\textbf{b}_i$ in order to quantify the current localisation error. An adjustment step is required at this stage since the manually delineated masks are rectangular or {square} in shape whilst the true lesions are generally round. Since all manually annotated lesions are typically {centred} in the middle of the bounding box, we {use a 2D Gaussian kernel} to trace an elliptical area of high probability in the middle of the box,
	\begin{equation}
	\mathcal{G}(r_1,r_2) = \frac{1}{2\pi\sigma^2} e^{- \frac{\frac{r_1}{2}^2+\frac{r_2}{2}^2}{2\sigma^2}},
	\end{equation}
	where $ r_1 $ and $ r_2 $ are the length and width, respectively, of the bounding box and $\sigma$ controls the size of the lesion within the box. We then resize the original mask to obtain $ \textbf{z}_i \in [0,1]^{28\times28} $, which is now directly comparable to $ \phi(\textbf{x}_i) $. A pixel-wise mean-square loss is then computed as $\textbf{e}_i = \lVert \phi^*(\textbf{x}_i) - \textbf{z}_i \rVert^2$, where
	\begin{equation*}
	\phi^*(\textbf{x}_i) = \frac{\phi(\textbf{x}_i)}{\max{\phi(\textbf{x}_i)}}
	\end{equation*}
	is a rescaled normalised scoremap. The proposed scaling {ensures that the prediction values are in range $[0,1]$, so to be properly compared to $\textbf{z}_i$}.
	%
	The final localisation loss is defined as
	\begin{equation*}\label{eq:hl}
	H_l(\pmb{\theta}_l) = \frac{1}{{N_b}} \sum\limits_{i=1}^{N_b} \Biggl\lVert \frac{ \textbf{e}_i }{ \alpha - \textbf{z}_i} \Biggl\lVert^2
	\end{equation*}
	where $ \pmb{\theta}_l $ denotes all the network's weights and the sum is over all images containing a bounding box.
	Given that lung lesions cover only a small part of the image, we expect only a minority of pixels to contribute to the above error. The loss term above places more importance to high-value pixels by diving each $\textbf{e}_i $ by $\alpha - \textbf{z}_i $, where $ \alpha $  is a constant set to $1.1$; see also \citet{cornia2016deep}.  The overall network architecture in Fig. {\ref{fig:arch1}} is then trained end-to-end as to minimise a linear combination $ H(\pmb{\theta}) $ of classification and localisation losses, i.e.
	\begin{equation*}
	H(\pmb{\theta}) = \lambda_1 H_c(\pmb{\theta}_c) + \lambda_2 H_l(\pmb{\theta}_l),
	\end{equation*}
	where $\lambda_1$ and $\lambda_2 $ are positive scalars controlling the trade-off between the two errors. Further implementation details are provided in Section \ref{sec:results}.

	\begin{figure*}[t!]
		\begin{center}
			\includegraphics[scale=0.25]{./RAM_update2_nodule.pdf}
		\end{center}
		\caption{An illustration of the RAMAF model. The green colour frame represents the bounding box annotation and red colour frames represent the proposed \enquote{glimpses} at each time step $t$. At each time step $t$ the Core RAM samples a location $\textbf{s}_{t}$ of where to attend next. In time steps (see time step: $t$) where the model samples a location that belongs to the bounding box annotation, it receives an extra reward.}
		\label{fig:ram}
	\end{figure*}

	\subsection{Recurrent attention model with annotation feedback (RAMAF)} \label{sec:secondmodel}

	Here, we propose an extension of the original RAM model \citep{Mnih14}, which we call Recurrent Attention Model with Annotation Feedback (RAMAF). The model works by observing only one portion of the image, one glimpse, at a time, and learns to navigate through an image by taking a sequence of glimpses at strategically chosen positions. After each step, the algorithm has observed a larger portion of the overall image, and the optimal policy controlling \enquote{where to look} minimises the classification error. In what follows, $\textbf{g}_{i,t}$ represents the observation, i.e. the glimpse seen by the model at time step $t$, and $\textbf{s}_{i,t} \in \mathbb{R}^{2}$ represents the coordinates $(\texttt{x}_{i,t}, \texttt{y}_{i,t})$ of the pixel located at the centre of the glimpse. The overall sequence of glimpses seen by the model for an image $\textbf{x}_{i}$ is defined as $\textbf{S}_{i,1:T} = \{\textbf{s}_{i,1}, \textbf{g}_{i,1}, \textbf{s}_{i,2}, \textbf{g}_{i,2}, \hdots, \textbf{s}_{i,T}, \textbf{g}_{i,T}\}$. In our formulation, each glimpse consists of two image patches of different size sharing the same central location $\textbf{s}_{t}$, each one capturing a different context around the same region. The largest patch is scaled down to match the size of the smallest one (see Fig.~\ref{fig:ram}). Once $\textbf{S}_{i,1:T} $ is available, a reward signal is generated depending on whether the image has been correctly classified. In RAMAF, in addition to this classification reward, an additional reward signal is introduced to take into account the number of central coordinates $\textbf{s}_{i,t}$ that lie within the coordinates of the bounding boxes for the images in $\mathcal{X}^{(b)}$.

	Fig.~\ref{fig:ram} provides an overview of the model. On top of the glimpse layer, an encoder is introduced to compress the information contained in the glimpse and extract a representation that is robust to noise. The encoder implemented here differs from the one used originally in \citep{Mnih14}. In this application, we have a complex visual environment featuring high variability in both luminance and object complexity. This is due to the large variability in a patient's anatomy, as well as technical variability, since the radiographs in our dataset were acquired from over $40$ different x-ray devices. At this stage, each glimpse is passed through a stack of two convolutional layers followed by max-pooling operations. Each convolutional layer in the stack is pre-trained offline {on the training data} using convolutional auto-encoders with max-pooling \citep{Masci11} and then fine-tuned as part of end-to-end training for the RAMAF model. During training, each $\textbf{g}_{i,t}$ is concatenated with the location representation and passed as input to a fully connected layer, whose output is denoted as $\textbf{v}_t \in \mathbb{R}^{256}$. The output is then passed as input to the Core RAM model, as illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:ram}.

	The role of the Core RAM model is to summarise the information extracted from the sequence of glimpses and use this summary to decide where to attend next. In our formulation, the information summary is formed by the hidden representation $\textbf{h}_{t} \in \mathbb{R}^{256}$ of a recurrent neural network with long short-term memory (LSTM) units. At each time step $t$, the encoder's output vector $\textbf{v}_{t}$ and the previous hidden representation $\textbf{h}_{t-1} \in \mathbb{R}^{256}$ of the RNN are passed as input to the current LSTM unit. The Locator (see Fig.\ref{fig:ram}) receives the hidden representation $\textbf{h}_{t}$ from the LSTM unit and passes on to a fully connected (FC) layer, resulting in a vector $\textbf{o}_{t} \in \mathbb{R}^{2}$ (see Fig.~\ref{fig:ram}). The Locator decides the position of the next glimpse by sampling $\textbf{s}_{t+1} \sim N(\textbf{o}_{t}, {\bf \Sigma})$, i.e. from a normal distribution with mean $\textbf{o}_{t}$ and diagonal covariance matrix ${\bf \Sigma}$. At the very first step, we initiate the algorithm at the centre of the image, and always use a fixed covariance matrix, ${\bf \Sigma}$.

	For each $\textbf{x}_{i} \in \mathcal{X}^{(b)}$, we use a spatial reward function that takes advantage of the bounding box annotations, i.e.
	$$
	R(\textbf{S}_{i,1:T}) = r_{i} + \frac{1}{T}\sum_{t=1}^{T}I_{t}
	$$
	consisting of two components. First, $r_{i} =1$ if the image classification is correct, otherwise $r_{i}= 0$. We set $I_{t}=2$ if the glimpse's central pixel $\textbf{s}_{t}$ at time step $t$ lies within the annotation bounding box, and $I_{t}=0$ otherwise (see Fig. \ref{fig:ram}). The latter term represents a spatial reward signal, which needs to be minimised. The model is then trained to learn a policy that maximises the conditional probability of the true label given the partial interaction with the radiographs. As in \citet{Mnih14}, we optimise the cross-entropy loss to train the network to correctly classify the radiographs. We train the part of the model which proposes the observation locations using the REINFORCE algorithm; further details can be found in \ref{appendix:ramaf}.

	\section{Experimental results} \label{sec:results}

	\subsection{Further implementation details}

	In this section we provide additional implementation details.  The CONAF loss function was fully specified using $\lambda_1 = 10 $ and $\lambda_2 = 0.1 $ as these parameters yielded optimal performance on the validation test.
	Training was done using back-propagation with adadelta \citep{zeiler2012adadelta}, mini-batches of 32 images and a learning rate of 0.03.
	During the training we fed the network through two types of mini-batches: one is composed {by only} images associated to weak labels and the other is composed of images with bounding box annotations. We picked the former type with probability $ p=0.8 $ and the latter with $ p=0.2 $. This approach was followed to avoid over-fitting in the localisation part since the number of annotated images was significantly smaller than the overall number of images.
	Given the unbalanced sample sizes characterising our dataset, all the images within a mini-batch were randomly selected ensuring that half of them were labelled as \emph{Lesion} and other half as either \emph{Normal} or \emph{Others}, depending on the experiment.
	{The $\sigma$ parameter controlling the 2D Gaussian Kernel was set to $ 0.25 $ in order to draw elliptical areas in which values close to zero are not too far or too close to the bounding box edges. A narrow Gaussian kernel would not allow using all the information available in the annotation, while a loose one would lead to a loss of precision. This has been done to provide a better approximation of the lesion shapes, since usually nodules and masses are round-shaped, while our annotations are rectangular.}

	For the RAMAF model, we used a fixed length of $7$ glimpses, each one containing a high-resolution window of size $70\times70$ pixels and a low-resolution window of size $140 \times 140$ pixels. The convolutional layers within the encoder consisted of $16$ feature maps with filters of dimension $3 \times 3$. These were followed by max-pooling layers with a non-overlapping receptive field of dimension $2 \times 2$. For training the model we used back-propagation through time (BPTT)~\citep{Werbos90}, optimized with Adam~\citep{KingmaB14} with mini-batches of size $40$ and learning rate of $0.0001$. The number of annotated images within each mini-batch varied between $5$ and $20$. The weights of the Core RAM were initialized with randomly selected values from a uniform distribution over the interval $[-0.1,0.1]$. A diagonal covariance matrix ${\bf \Sigma}$ with elements $0.22$ was used for sampling each glimpse's coordinates.

	\subsection{Competing architectures}

	Other neural network architectures were tested in comparison to our algorithms. To assess the degree of both the classification and localisation performance achievable from using weak labels only, we used two state-of-the-art weakly-supervised methods performing both classification and localisation tasks. The first method, proposed in \citet{oquab2015object}, uses convolutional adaptation layers at the end of the feature extraction layer in order to get a scoremap for each class. The second method, proposed in \citet{zhou2015learning}, uses a global average pooling layer, after the last layer of feature maps in order, to encourage the network to identify the complete extent of the object; it then passes the output features as inputs to a fully connected layer in order to compute the desired output. Saliency maps are obtained by projecting back the weights of the fully connected layer on to the last layer of convolutional feature maps.

	Furthermore, we considered two state-of-the-art fully supervised methods for object detection. The OverFeat algorithm performs classification, localisation and detection \citep{sermanet2014overfeat}. It scans an image in a sliding window fashion at several scales; during training the tasks of classification and bounding box prediction are performed simultaneously. In a final stage, all predicted bounding boxes are merged according to a proposed scheme. The second algorithm uses a CNN module to encode an image in high-level feature representation, which is then passed to a LSTM (long-short term memory) network which learns to decode this representation into predicted bounding boxes \citep{Stewart2015End}.

	\begin{table}[t!]
		\centering
		\caption{SUMMARY OF AVAILABLE SAMPLE SIZES.}
		\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}
			\hline  Radiological appearance & Train & Validation & Test & Total \\
			\hline  Normal  & 88,929 & 11,118 & 1,719 & 101,766 \\
			\hline  Lesion  & 18,870 & 2,398 & 1,864 & 23,132  \\
			\hline  Others & 267,326 & 33,576 & 4,267 & 305,169  \\
			\hline
		\end{tabular}
		\label{table:splits}
	\end{table}

	\begin{table*}[!t]
		\caption{CLASSIFICATION PERFORMANCE: LESION VS NORMAL ONLY AND LESION VS ALL OTHERS.}
		\label{table:normal_vs_all}
		\centering
		\resizebox{\columnwidth}{!}{%
			\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c||c|c|c|c|}
				\hline   & \multicolumn{4}{c||}{Lesion vs Normal Only} & \multicolumn{4}{c|}{Lesion vs All Others} \\
				\hline  Method 				& Accuracy  & F1  & Sensitivity & Precision & Accuracy  & F1  & Sensitivity & Precision \\
				\hline
				\hline  OverFeat \citep{sermanet2014overfeat} & 0.75 & 0.76 & 0.77 & 0.75 & 0.64	 & 0.55	 & \textbf{0.77} & 0.42  \\
				\hline  Stewart  \citep{Stewart2015End} & 0.75 & 0.74 & 0.72 & 0.78 & 0.64	 & 0.54	 & 0.73 & 0.43  \\
				\hline  Oquab \citep{oquab2015object}  & 0.81 & 0.79 & 0.72 & 0.89  & 0.61 & 0.46 & 0.44 & 0.48  \\
				\hline  Zhou \citep{zhou2015learning}  & 0.81  & 0.79 &  0.71 & 0.89 & 0.72  & 0.62 &  0.53 & \textbf{ 0.74} \\
				\hline  RAM & 0.72 & 0.70  & 0.63 & 0.78 & 0.61 & 0.48  & 0.52 & 0.44  \\\Xhline{2\arrayrulewidth}
				\hline  RAMAF & 0.73 & 0.74 & 0.74 & 0.74  & 0.61 & 0.47 &  0.52 &  0.43 \\
				\hline  CONAF & \textbf{0.85} & \textbf{0.85}  & \textbf{0.78} & \textbf{0.92} & \textbf{0.76} & \textbf{0.67}  & 0.74  &  0.60 \\
				\hline
			\end{tabular}
		}
	\end{table*}

	\begin{table*}[!t]
		\centering
		\caption{LOCALISATION PERFORMANCES: LESION VS NORMAL ONLY AND LESION VS ALL OTHERS.}
		\label{table:locresult}
		\resizebox{\columnwidth}{!}{%
			\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c||c|c|c|c|c|c|}
				\hline   & \multicolumn{3}{c||}{Lesion vs Normal Only} & \multicolumn{3}{c|}{Lesion vs All Others} \\
				\hline  Method 				& Sensitivity   	& Precision  	&  Average Overlap  & Sensitivity   	& Precision  	&  Average Overlap \\
				\hline  OverFeat \citep{sermanet2014overfeat}  & 0.35 & 0.41 & 0.27 & 0.37	& \textbf{0.28} & 0.30	\\
				\hline  Stewart  \citep{Stewart2015End}  & 0.36 & \textbf{0.47} & 0.26 & 0.37 & 	\textbf{0.28} & 0.30 \\
				\hline  Oquab \citep{oquab2015object} & 0.57 & 0.14 	& 0.22 & 0.02 & 0.01  & 0.02 \\
				\hline  Zhou \citep{zhou2015learning} & 0.49 & 0.12 	& 0.25	& 0.34 & 0.10 	& 0.17	\\ \Xhline{2\arrayrulewidth}
				\hline  CONAF 	& \textbf{0.74} & 0.21  & \textbf{0.45}	& \textbf{0.65} & 0.15 	&	\textbf{0.43} \\
				\hline
			\end{tabular}
		}
	\end{table*}

	\subsection{Lesion classification performance}\label{sec:noduleclassificationperfomance}

	Comparison with these state-of-the-art methods for classification and localisation were conducted in two separate experiments. In the first experiment (\emph{Lesion vs Normal}), we assess the ability of our proposed models to differentiate between chest radiographs with normal radiological appearance (i.e. no abnormal findings) and chest radiographs with lesions. In the second experiment (\emph{Lesion} vs everything else), we tested whether our models were able to differentiate between chest radiographs with lesions and all other chest radiographs, including normals and those with other radiological findings ({\it Normal + Others}) (see Tables~\ref{table:normal_vs_all} and~\ref{table:locresult}). In both cases, we split the dataset into training (80\%), validation (10\%) and from the remaining set (10\%) we extracted our test set composed of $ 6,131 $ images which had had weak labels manually validated by two independent radiologists. This is necessary so as to ensure that our test set does not contain NLP errors. Each set is generated by randomly sampling from all available exams and ensuring that the patient's age and all the pathologies (see Table \ref{tab:NLP_results}) are represented. Furthermore, the training set contains the 80\% of images annotated with bounding boxes, whilst the test set contains the 20\%. Indeed we chose our model taking the classification F1 score on the validation set in order, to allow more bounding boxes examples for evaluating the localisation performance. All performance metrics reported here were calculated using the independent test set only. While the positive class (\emph{Lesion}) has been fixed, the negative class can vary between \emph{Normal} and \emph{Others},  according to the experiment we considered.
	Table \ref{table:splits} provides the sample sizes.
	For this task, we report on average accuracy, F1 measure, sensitivity and precision (see Table~\ref{table:normal_vs_all}).
	We observe that CONAF outperforms all others methods in terms of average accuracy, F1-measure and sensitivity while the highest precision for the detection of images with lesions (vs Others) is achieved by the method using Class Activation Maps \citep{zhou2015learning}. It should be noted that, in this application, achieving the highest possible sensitivity is critical as the main aim is to minimise the percentage of possible tumours that are missed by the algorithm.
	The accuracy of CONAF with respect to lesion size is illustrated in Fig. \ref{fig:results_3}.
	{We calculated the deciles of the lesion size distribution (Figure \ref{fig:hist_bb}) to show the performances of both experiments. In both cases the accuracy increases linearly with the lesion size: nodules with a diameter smaller than $10$ millimeters are detected with an accuracy minor of $0.2$, while masses with a diameter bigger of $100$ millimeters are detected with an accuracy minor of $0.7$. This is an expected result since smaller nodules are more difficult to spot while largest masses are easy to detect for both humans and AI.}
	Furthermore, it can be noticed that RAMAF achieves better performance compared to the simpler RAM model trained without bounding boxes.
	Both models are, in general, comparable to competing architectures in terms of overall performance. These results provide evidence that deep learning algorithms trained on a sufficiently large dataset are robust against a moderate level of label noise, which corresponds with findings from previously reported studies  \citep{2017arXiv170501936N, Rolnick17, DBLP:journals/corr/abs-1711-00583}.

	\subsection{Lesion localisation performance}

	The localisation performance was assessed by first segmenting the lesions against the background in the dataset. This was done by using the inferred scoremaps $ \phi(\textbf{x}_i) $  provided by CONAF and selecting all pixels whose estimated values on the maps were below a given threshold. We tried different threshold values ranging from $0.2$ to $0.8$ in increments of $0.2$.
	After the thresholding process, we considered as lesion candidates the resulting regions with spatially contiguous pixels. A bounding box was drawn around each of these candidates. Any candidate bounding box that overlapped by at least $25\%$ with the ground truth bounding box was taken as a true positive. The number of true positive, false negative and false positive boxes was used to derive precision and sensitivity measures; that said, while it was not possible to calculate average accuracy and the F1 measure since that there are no true negatives for this task.

	Table~\ref{table:locresult} summarizes all the localisation results. The table shows that, in terms of sensitivity and average overlap, CONAF achieves superior performance while OverFeat achieves the best precision. Furthermore, Fig.~\ref{fig:results_1} provides two examples comparing the localisation results obtained by CONAF and \citep{zhou2015learning}, which is best competitor study if looking at F1 score shown in Table \ref{table:normal_vs_all}. It can be noticed that the bounding boxes predicted by CONAF are closer to the ground truths in terms of location and shape, and in respect to the other methods.  Fig.~\ref{fig:performance_overlap} illustrates the relationship between the overlap threshold and sensitivity/precision for a number of competing algorithms. CONAF is capable of greater sensitivity than all other methods, whereas in terms of sensitivity/precision is in between the weakly-supervised and the object detection methods.

	No comparable localisation metrics can be obtained using the RAM/RAMAF. Instead, we measure the percentage of regions contained within the bounding boxes that overlap with at least one of the \enquote{glimpses} taken by these models. In our experiments, RAMAF detected $82\%$ of the overall bounding boxes in the test set while the RAM model detected only $55\%$. This result indicates that RAMAF is capable to make a proper use of the additional spatial information that is accessible for a subset of the images. Additional and noticeable advantages have also been observed in terms of convergence rate; Fig. \ref{fig:ram_ramaf_av_acc} shows that RAMAF learns approximately five times faster compared to RAM.

	\begin{figure*}[h]
		\centering

		\vspace*{1mm}
		\begin{minipage}[b]{.25\textwidth}
			\centering
			\includegraphics[width=0.75\linewidth]{RJ107691791_bb.pdf}
			\captionsetup{labelformat=empty}
		\end{minipage}%
		\begin{minipage}[b]{.25\textwidth}
			\centering
			\includegraphics[width=0.75\linewidth]{RJ107691791_cam.pdf}
			\captionsetup{labelformat=empty}
		\end{minipage}%
		\begin{minipage}[b]{.25\textwidth}
			\centering
			\includegraphics[width=0.75\linewidth]{RJ107691791_hybrid.pdf}
			\captionsetup{labelformat=empty}
		\end{minipage}%
		\begin{minipage}[b]{.25\textwidth}
			\centering
			\includegraphics[width=0.75\linewidth]{RJ107691791_ram.pdf}
			\captionsetup{labelformat=empty}
		\end{minipage}%

		\vspace{1mm}

		\begin{minipage}[b]{.25\textwidth}
			\centering
			\includegraphics[width=0.75\linewidth]{RJ107589466_bb.pdf}
			\captionsetup{labelformat=empty}
			\caption*{Original Image}
		\end{minipage}%
		\begin{minipage}[b]{.25\textwidth}
			\centering
			\includegraphics[width=0.75\linewidth]{RJ107589466_cam.pdf}
			\captionsetup{labelformat=empty}
			\caption*{\citep{zhou2015learning}}
		\end{minipage}%
		\begin{minipage}[b]{.25\textwidth}
			\centering
			\includegraphics[width=0.75\linewidth]{RJ107589466_hybrid.pdf}
			\captionsetup{labelformat=empty}
			\caption*{CONAF}
		\end{minipage}%
		\begin{minipage}[b]{.25\textwidth}
			\centering
			\includegraphics[width=0.75\linewidth]{RJ107589466_ram.pdf}
			\captionsetup{labelformat=empty}
			\caption*{RAMAF}
		\end{minipage}%

		\caption{Two examples (one per row) of lesion localisation performance using different neural networks. The white boxes were manually drawn by radiologists. The red boxes are those considered likely to contain a lesion by the architecture described in \citep{zhou2015learning} and CONAF, , including false positives. For RAMAF, we display the trajectories followed by the algorithms before making a classification decision: the path starts at the point indicated by the red square and ends at at the point indicated by the red triangle.}
		%
		\label{fig:results_1}
	\end{figure*}

	\section{Discussion and conclusions}

	Wherea as other imaging modalities for cancer detection (e.g. mammograms and the breast screening programme more widely) are routinely double-read and associated with an improvement in sensitivity of detection \citep{samRefA}, the same is not feasible with chest radiographs (due to the sheer volume of scans, $40\%$ of the $3.6$ billion annual medical images are chest radiographs) and a lack of resources. Machine learning systems powered by deep learning algorithms offer a mechanism to automate the second-reading process, but require large volumes of manually curated examples in order be trained, a process which is expensive and time-consuming. Furthermore, the automated detection of pulmonary lesions is a challenging task because nodules have a high variability in size and shape. Access to larger-scale radiological datasets has only recently enabled the joint modelling of images and radiological reports for automated screening purposes \citep{DBLP:journals/corr/ShinRLDYS16, Shin2016, Wang17}. This paper leverages a large database of NLP-labelled chest radiographs generated over a period of years in two large UK hospitals to explore the performance of different pattern classification algorithms to detect chest radiographs with lung lesions. A number of approaches, from weakly supervised learning to fully supervised object detection, have been compared with the purpose of improving the image classification task. To the best of our knowledge, this is the largest study to date exploring the potential of deep learning for pulmonary lesion detection. It is also the only study to use a heterogeneous historical database, comprising of all x-rays from over forty different scanners (including portable and stationary devices), and a well-diversified adult patient population.

	Two novel methods have been proposed, undergirded by the principle that a significantly large proportion of weakly-labelled images can be combined with a smaller subset of manually annotated images through a visual attention mechanism in order to boost the classification performance. The idea of attention in deep neural networks is inspired by the human visual attention system. Spatial attention allows humans to selectively process visual information through prioritisation of an area within the visual field \citep{Rensink00} and significantly improve both recognition and detection performance, especially in images with cluttered background \citep{Cichy14}. Following the same principle, neural networks can be trained to focus on specific portions of an input signal that appear to be more strongly related to the task at hand. In CONAF, a localisation loss function is derived from inferred saliency maps and is combined with a traditional classification error to improve the overall performance. This architecture implements a supervised attention feedback mechanism since the error signal from the localisation component is used to further refine the saliency maps generated from the convolutional layers in a weakly supervised way.

	CONAF can be interpreted as a type of feedback neural network \citep{Cao15, Stollenga14, Zamir17}, a recurrent architecture that iteratively uses high level features to back refine low level features and focus on the most salient image regions. Feedback neural networks without recurrent connections have been used recently for human pose estimation \citep{Carreira16}, where a self-correcting model progressively changes the initial prediction by iteratively feeding back the error predictions. In \citet{Newell16}, a stacked hourglass network is proposed to introduce bottom-up, top-down inference across multiple scales. In other domains, it has also been shown that network feedbacks can improve the task of locating human face landmarks \citep{Hu16}. Models implementing {\it soft attention mechanisms} typically learn by processing the entire input images using DCNNs. During learning, these models focus on certain parts of an input image that are directly associated with the demands of the task. The key idea is to learn features from a weighted average of all image locations where locations are weighted based on the saliency maps produced by the highest convolutional layers of the network. The intuition behind these approaches is that the saliency maps generated by the last convolutional layer of DCNNs trained on weakly labelled images highlight which regions of an image are important for classification. Soft attention has been used for learning a mapping between radiological reports and the corresponding histopathology specimens \citep{Zhang2017MDNET}.

	The second model proposed here, RAMAF, uses a recurrent attention model with spatial feedback rewards to explore the image, building on previous work on chest radiographs \citep{Ypsilantis17}. While CONAF outperforms other state-of-the-art methods, RAMAF provides an improvement on the original approach when annotated images are available. RAMAF is an instance of {\it hard attention mechanisms} whereby learning evolves by iteratively focusing on selectively chosen regions within an image. In early attempts to introduce hard attention, the local information extracted from images was sequentially integrated in a variety of ways, e.g. through Boltzmann machines (BM) \citep{Denil11,Larochelle10} and geometric means of intermediate predictions \citep{Ranzato14}. More recent proposals have focused on stochastic exploration of a sequence of image regions. The number of computational operations involved in these models is independent of the size of the input image, in contrast to soft attention models whose computational complexity is directly proportional to the number of image pixels. While this allows hard attention models to scale up to large input images, the stochastic selection of image regions does not yield differentiable solutions, which hinders the applicability of back-propagation. Instead, these models are typically trained using reinforcement learning methods \citep{Mnih14, Williams92}.

	In comparison to other methods, using the F1 score – calculated from precision and sensitivity – our image classification results are an improvement over other documented methodologies. By combining the large set of reported images with a high quality subset of annotated lesions, we show that the sensitivity can be improved whilst attaining an acceptably low level of false postives, which is essential for clinical use. When investigating lesion localisation, CONAF achieves a much higher sensitivity compared to other algorithms. OverFeat and Stewart's method, which are trained using object detection, can achieve higher precision, but at the cost of a much lower sensitivity. Moreover, CONAF achieves very good localisation performance, i.e. a very high degree of overlap between the predicted lesion and the manually identified ground truth regions.

	In the literature, existing CAD systems for pulmonary lesion detection have been tested on datasets with sample sizes up to hundreds of patients \citep{bushlung,moore2011sensitivity, szucs2013comparison}. More recently, access to large number of historical exams has allowed studies to be scaled up to several thousand examples \citep{openi, Wang17}. For chest x-rays, a database of $7,284$ images spanning thirteen disease classes (including $211$ lesion examples and $1,379$ normal examples) has recently been used to automatically learn to detect a disease and annotate its context \citep{DBLP:journals/corr/ShinRLDYS16}. More recently, a database of $108,948$ chest radiographs, spanning eight disease classes, has been made publicly available (with $1,971$ examples of lesions and $84,312$ normal examples) \citep{Wang17}. Direct comparisons with published results are potentially misleading because of noticeable differences in how comparisons have been done (e.g. whether normal exams are compared to exams with lung lesions only, rather than including the full spectrum of abnormalities that are typically observed). Our empirical results are particularly promising considering that the image labels used in this study are, inevitably, noisy. Several recent studies in other domains have shown that deep convolutional neural networks for image classification are sufficiently robust against noisy labels ~\citep{GuanGDH17,Rolnick17}.

	In future work, the simple network architectures describe here could be further improved. In particular, instead of using a fixed number of glimpses, RAMAF could be extended to adaptively decide how much context is required in order to correctly classify each image (e.g. the size and the number of glimpses). Such as extension could reduce the computational time and add an additional layer of interpretability.

	\begin{figure*}[t!]
		\centering
		\begin{minipage}[b]{.49\textwidth}
			%
			\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{overlap_recall_2.pdf}
			\captionsetup{labelformat=empty}
		\end{minipage}%
		\begin{minipage}[b]{.49\textwidth}
			%
			\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{overlap_precision_2.pdf}
			\captionsetup{labelformat=empty}
		\end{minipage}%
		\caption{CONAF localisation performance: recall (left) and precision (right) rates as function of the overlap threshold.}
		\label{fig:performance_overlap}
	\end{figure*}

	\section*{Acknowledgments}
	Giovanni Montana acknowledges financial support of a King's Health Partner's R\&D Challenge Fund award as well as a King's Health Accelerator Fund award.

	\section*{References}

	\bibliographystyle{abbrvnat}

Machine Learning (stat.ML); Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (cs.CV)