HRVVS: A High-resolution Video Vasculature Segmentation Network via Hierarchical Autoregressive Residual Priors

Haipeng Zhou; Haisu Tao; Jian Yang; Kangwei Guo; Lei Zhu; Ruiqiang Xiao; Xincheng Yao; Yijun Yang

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 35 references

HRVVS: A High-resolution Video Vasculature Segmentation Network via Hierarchical Autoregressive Residual Priors

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read This paper introduces the first high-resolution hepatic vasculature video segmentation dataset, Hepa-SEG, and a network, HRVVS, that reports state-of-the-art performance on it.

desk verdict The dataset is a real contribution; the method is plausible but the headline numbers are not trustworthy until the split unit is clarified. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.22530 v2 pith:SHA76FUP submitted 2025-07-30 cs.CV cs.AI

Xincheng Yao , Yijun Yang , Kangwei Guo , Ruiqiang Xiao , Haipeng Zhou , Haisu Tao , Jian Yang , Lei Zhu This is my paper

classification cs.CVcs.AI

keywords hepaticvasculaturesegmentationsurgicalvideohigh-resolutionvisualautoregressivemodelobjectHepa-SEGdatasetmemorydecoderhepatectomy

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper introduces the first dataset and segmentation network for hepatic vasculature in high-resolution surgical video. The Hepa-SEG dataset contains 35 hepatectomy videos and 11,442 manually annotated 1080x1920 frames, and the proposed HRVVS network combines a frozen visual autoregressive model as a residual prior with a dynamic memory decoder. On that dataset, HRVVS is reported to outperform nine state-of-the-art image and video segmentation methods, reaching a Jaccard index of 0.5405, Dice of 0.6532, S-alpha of 0.7878, F-measure of 0.6769, and E-measure of 0.8711. If the benchmark is sound, this gives surgeons and researchers the first measurable target for live vessel localization during liver resection.

What carries the argument

The core mechanism is the hierarchical autoregressive residual prior: a frozen VAR model's multi-scale unified-quantization features are projected by adapters and added into the downsampling layers of a Swin-based multi-view encoder, so generation-style priors compensate for information lost as resolution decreases. The decoder side hinges on a dynamic memory mechanism: MSIM updates current local and global features via multi-head cross-attention with exponentially downsampled historical frames from a memory bank, and DWFM fuses four local views patch-wise using weights that combine current global, previous-frame, and historical weights, with historical weights updated by an exponential moving average. These two mechanisms carry the argument that both within-frame detail and cross-frame continuity are needed for accurate vessel segmentation.

What would settle it

Re-run Table 1 with a strict video-level split, holding out entire videos rather than individual frames; if HRVVS's Jaccard lead over SALI shrinks from +3.16% to within noise, the current split was leaking temporal correlation and inflating the reported gains.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that hepatic vasculature segmentation in high-resolution hepatectomy videos can be solved by a dual-branch encoder in which a pretrained visual autoregressive model (VAR) injects multi-scale residual features into a Swin-based multi-view encoder, combined with a dynamic memory decoder that propagates selected global features across frames. The paper asserts this is the first work on this task and that HRVVS significantly outperforms state-of-the-art image and video segmentation methods on the introduced Hepa-SEG dataset, beating the strongest baseline SALI on Jaccard, Dice, F-measure, and E-measure, with only S-alpha lower than LDNet. The reported gains are attributed to the VAR residual priors reducing information degradation during downsampling and to the Multi-view Spatiotemporal Interaction Module (MSIM) and Dynamic Weights Fusion Module (DWFM) reducing redundant cross-frame transmission while preserving fine vessel detail.

Load-bearing premise

The benchmark is valid only if the random 7:1:2 split described in Section 3.1 is applied at the video level or otherwise breaks temporal correlation, so that test frames are not near-duplicates of training frames.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the reported numbers hold under proper splitting, HRVVS provides the first state-of-the-art baseline on Hepa-SEG, giving future work a concrete target for hepatic vasculature segmentation in surgical video.
The VAR residual prior mechanism shows that a frozen generative image model can supply multi-scale context to a segmentation encoder, reducing information loss during downsampling without full finetuning.
The dynamic memory decoder demonstrates a way to propagate temporal information across long surgical videos while limiting redundant transmission, which is directly relevant to other long video segmentation tasks.
The public release of Hepa-SEG means the dataset itself becomes a benchmark, allowing other methods to be compared under identical conditions on a previously missing task.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

If the reported gains survive a video-level split, the same frozen-autoregressive-prior-plus-adapter recipe could be tested on other high-resolution surgical video segmentation tasks where annotated frames are scarce, such as ureter or nerve delineation.
The dynamic memory weighting in DWFM is domain-agnostic; ablating it on an established public video object segmentation benchmark would show whether temporal weight smoothing rather than the surgical domain drives the improvement over video baselines.
The paper does not report per-frame inference time or memory, so measuring those on a clinical GPU would settle whether the gains translate into real-time intraoperative guidance rather than only offline accuracy.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The main reason to look at this paper is the dataset. Hepa-SEG, 35 hepatectomy videos with frame-level manual annotations at 1080x1920, is a genuinely new resource and the first public benchmark for hepatic vasculature segmentation in surgical video. That alone carries weight. The method is a reasonable engineering effort: pretrained VAR features as residual priors into a Swin encoder, plus a memory decoder with attention-based fusion. The ablation shows the full model does best, and DWFM appears to be the main driver. Nothing revolutionary, but it is not a toy either.

The soft spot is the one the reader flagged: the split. Section 3.1 says 'The data is randomly split into training, validation, and test sets with a ratio of 7:1:2.' It does not say videos are split. With 35 videos and 11,442 frames, a frame-level split would place near-duplicate consecutive frames into both training and test, directly inflating the video-level metrics. HRVVS is a memory-based video model, so it would benefit disproportionately from that leakage. The reported gains over SALI are also small in absolute terms (Jaccard 0.5405 vs 0.5239, Dice 0.6532 vs 0.6424), and no standard deviations or significance tests appear anywhere. Until the authors confirm the split is video-level and reproduce the numbers under that condition, the headline claim should not be taken at face value. I do not think this is fraud—likely sloppy reporting—but it is load-bearing.

Two smaller issues. First, the baseline training protocol is underdescribed: were all baselines trained with the same sliding window, input resolution, and loss? That matters for a fair comparison. Second, there is a citation inconsistency for ISNet: the text cites reference [33] (a different ISNet paper on infrared targets) while Table 1 lists ISNet as [19] (the dichotomous segmentation paper). Minor, but symptomatic of rushed finalization.

Who is this for? Anyone working on surgical video segmentation or medical video datasets. The dataset, once released, will be a useful benchmark even if the method is not. The paper deserves a serious referee, but the review must demand clarification of the split unit, re-evaluation if needed, error bars, and the actual code and data. Right now it is a conditional accept at best, not a reject outright.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper introduces Hepa-SEG, described as the first high-resolution hepatic vasculature segmentation dataset for surgical videos, containing 35 hepatectomy videos and 11,442 high-resolution frames with frame-by-frame annotations. The authors also propose HRVVS, a video segmentation network with a dual-branch encoder that uses a frozen pretrained visual autoregressive (VAR) model as residual priors, a multi-view spatiotemporal interaction module (MSIM), and a dynamic weight fusion module (DWFM) with a memory bank. The method is compared against nine image- and video-level segmentation baselines on five metrics, and Table 1 reports improvements over the strongest baseline SALI on four of five metrics, with the S-measure exception attributed to LDNet.

Significance. If the empirical evaluation is valid, the paper makes two useful contributions: a new, publicly planned benchmark for a clinically relevant but understudied task, and a plausible architectural recipe that demonstrates transfer of a pretrained VAR model to surgical video segmentation. The dataset contribution is particularly valuable because no prior high-resolution video hepatic vasculature segmentation dataset exists. However, the headline quantitative claim rests entirely on a single random split with no error bars or significance tests, and the split unit is not specified, so the comparison cannot yet be regarded as established.

major comments (3)

[Sec. 3.1] The split protocol is underspecified in a load-bearing way. The text says 'The data is randomly split into training, validation, and test sets with a ratio of 7:1:2' but does not state whether the unit of splitting is the video or the frame. With 35 videos and 11,442 frames, a frame-level random split would place temporally adjacent, near-duplicate frames of the same video into both training and test sets. Because HRVVS is explicitly a video model with a memory bank and multi-frame propagation, such leakage would disproportionately inflate its results in Table 1. Please specify the split unit; if it was frame-level, re-run all experiments with a video-level split (e.g., report which video IDs are in each set) and report the resulting metrics. This is essential for the central claim that HRVVS outperforms state-of-the-art methods.
[Table 1 / Sec. 3.2] No standard deviations, confidence intervals, or significance tests are reported anywhere, yet the abstract states that HRVVS 'significantly outperforms' the state-of-the-art methods. The margins over the strongest baseline SALI are small in absolute terms (Jaccard 0.5405 vs. 0.5239; Dice 0.6532 vs. 0.6424), and the ablation table suffers from the same absence of repeated runs. Please report mean and standard deviation over multiple seeds or, preferably, per-video metrics with a paired significance test over the 35 videos. Without this, the 'significantly outperforms' claim is not supported.
[Sec. 3.2 and References] The baseline identity of 'ISNet' is inconsistent and must be corrected for reproducibility. The text in Sec. 3.2 refers to 'ISNet [33]' as a high-resolution segmentation method, but reference [33] is 'Isnet: Shape matters for infrared small target detection' (CVPR 2022), whereas Table 1 lists 'ISNet [19] ECCV 22', with reference [19] being 'Highly accurate dichotomous image segmentation' (ECCV 2022). These are different models. Please align the citation and specify exactly which ISNet variant was used in the comparison, and rerun the baseline with the intended model if the mismatch changes the reported numbers.

minor comments (6)

[Sec. 2.4] Equations (4) and (5) introduce fusion weights α, β, γ, and δ, but the paper does not state whether these are learned or fixed hyperparameters. Please specify and, if fixed, report their values.
[Sec. 2.3] The memory bank uses 'exponential downsampling rates' for historical frames, but the rates are never defined. Please give the precise schedule or formula.
[Table 2] The ablation 'basic' model is not described. Please define the architecture that excludes the VAR branch, MSIM, and DWFM so that the reader can interpret the incremental contributions.
[Sec. 3.1] As this is a new dataset, the paper should report annotation details: the number of annotators, their clinical expertise, the annotation tool, and inter-annotator agreement. Without these, the 'high quality frame-by-frame annotated' claim is difficult to assess.
[Abstract] The abstract says 'Extensive experiments on surgical video datasets' (plural), but experiments are conducted only on Hepa-SEG. Please change to 'surgical video dataset' or add additional datasets.
[Fig. 2 and Sec. 2.3] The notation {L^{mism}_m} appears to be a typo for {L^{msim}_m}; the module abbreviation is also written as both 'Multi-view Spatiotemporal Interaction Module' and 'Multi-scale Integration Module' in the ablation discussion. Please unify the terminology.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation found: the method and dataset are evaluated against external baselines, and no result is defined in terms of a fitted parameter.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is an empirical benchmark result: HRVVS achieves higher Jaccard, Dice, F-measure, and E-measure than nine published baselines on the newly introduced Hepa-SEG dataset (Table 1). No step in the method section defines a predicted quantity in terms of a fitted parameter, a self-citation chain, or an imported uniqueness theorem. The VAR branch uses a pretrained external model (VAR, [23]) with frozen weights and learnable adapters; the memory decoder uses standard attention and weighted fusion. These are architectural choices validated by ablations (Table 2), not circular derivations. The dataset is introduced by the same authors and manually annotated, which is standard practice for a new benchmark and does not by itself make the evaluation circular, since the baselines are independently published methods evaluated on the same protocol. The only notable concern is Section 3.1, which states 'The data is randomly split into training, validation, and test sets with a ratio of 7:1:2' without specifying whether the split is at video level or frame level. If frames are split without separating videos, temporally adjacent near-duplicate frames could leak across train and test and inflate all methods, potentially altering the comparison margins. This is a correctness/validity risk, not a circularity, because the reported metrics are not defined in terms of the training fit and no equation reduces to its own input. The authors' self-citations (e.g., Vivim [30,31] and Diffmic [25,26]) are used as baselines or as general inspiration in the MSIM design; they are not load-bearing in establishing the core result, and no unique-solution claim is imported from the authors' prior work. Therefore the paper exhibits no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper contributes a new dataset and architecture, so the ledger is dominated by dataset-quality and experimental-protocol assumptions rather than mathematical axioms. The most consequential entries are the unstated split unit and the unverified annotation quality.

free parameters (3)

DWFM fusion weights alpha, beta, gamma, delta
Equations 4 and 5 define final and historical fusion weights using four scalars, but the manuscript never reports their values or whether they are learned or fixed.
Memory bank exponential downsampling rates
Section 2.3 states that historical frames are downsampled with exponential rates but does not specify the rates or the memory upper bound.
Training hyperparameters = epochs=15, batch=32, lr=1e-5, polynomial decay=0.9
These are hand-chosen settings that could affect the comparison, especially if baseline methods were not trained under the same budget.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Manual frame-by-frame annotations in Hepa-SEG are accurate and consistent.
Section 3.1 describes every frame as manually annotated but reports no inter-annotator agreement or annotation protocol.
domain assumption The random 7:1:2 split separates temporal context rather than leaking near-duplicate frames.
Section 3.1 specifies only a random split ratio; the split unit is unstated, and consecutive surgical frames are highly correlated.
domain assumption Pretrained VAR and Swin Transformer features transfer to surgical video after adapter training.
Section 2.2 freezes the VAR backbone and relies on adapters to close the domain gap; no evidence outside the reported benchmark is given.
domain assumption Baselines are compared under a fair and comparable training protocol.
Section 3.2 lists nine baselines but does not document how each was trained or adapted to Hepa-SEG.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of HRVVS: A High-resolution Video Vasculature Segmentation Network via Hierarchical Autoregressive Residual Priors." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SHA76FUP

@misc{pith2026250722530,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: HRVVS: A High-resolution Video Vasculature Segmentation Network via Hierarchical Autoregressive Residual Priors},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SHA76FUP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.22530}
}

read the original abstract

The segmentation of the hepatic vasculature in surgical videos holds substantial clinical significance in the context of hepatectomy procedures. However, owing to the dearth of an appropriate dataset and the inherently complex task characteristics, few researches have been reported in this domain. To address this issue, we first introduce a high quality frame-by-frame annotated hepatic vasculature dataset containing 35 long hepatectomy videos and 11442 high-resolution frames. On this basis, we propose a novel high-resolution video vasculature segmentation network, dubbed as HRVVS. We innovatively embed a pretrained visual autoregressive modeling (VAR) model into different layers of the hierarchical encoder as prior information to reduce the information degradation generated during the downsampling process. In addition, we designed a dynamic memory decoder on a multi-view segmentation network to minimize the transmission of redundant information while preserving more details between frames. Extensive experiments on surgical video datasets demonstrate that our proposed HRVVS significantly outperforms the state-of-the-art methods. The source code and dataset will be publicly available at \{https://github.com/scott-yjyang/HRVVS}.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.22530 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Main challenges in hepatic vasculature segmentation. Fluorescent green shadow is used to show the location of vasculature in (a) and (b), the arrow and green outline are used to point to the corresponding location in (c). (a) Discontinuities between frames and abrupt positional transformations. (b) Significant variations of vessels in different contexts. (c) Similarities in the outline of vessels and surrounding tis… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Pipeline of the proposed HRVVS. Our method comprises three main components: (a) “VAR Branch”, a multi-scale generation branch based on visual autoregressive modeling equipped with adapters. (b) “Multi-view Branch” is based on a hierarchical encoder with five different views of the current frame. (c) the “Dynamic Memory Decoder” is a decoder of our network, which includes a multi-scale decoder, a memory bank, a Mu… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Visualization results of different methods on a challenge clip. Quantitative Comparison. As shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages

[33]

In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition

Zhang, M., Zhang, R., Yang, Y., Bai, H., Zhang, J., Guo, J.: Isnet: Shape matters for infrared small target detection. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. pp. 877–886 (2022)

2022
[19]

In: European Conference on Computer Vision

Qin, X., Dai, H., Hu, X., Fan, D.P., Shao, L., Van Gool, L.: Highly accurate di- chotomous image segmentation. In: European Conference on Computer Vision. pp. 38–56. Springer (2022)

work page 2022
[1]

In: 2009 IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recogni- tion

Achanta, R., Hemami, S., Estrada, F., Susstrunk, S.: Frequency-tuned salient re- gion detection. In: 2009 IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recogni- tion. pp. 1597–1604. IEEE (2009)

work page 2009
[2]

Medical image analysis99, 103371 (2025)

Ali, S., Espinel, Y., Jin, Y., Liu, P., Güttner, B., Zhang, X., Zhang, L., Dowrick, T., Clarkson, M.J., Xiao, S., et al.: An objective comparison of methods for augmented reality in laparoscopic liver resection by preoperative-to-intraoperative image fu- sion from the miccai2022 challenge. Medical image analysis99, 103371 (2025)

work page 2025
[3]

In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

Cheng, X., Xiong, H., Fan, D.P., Zhong, Y., Harandi, M., Drummond, T., Ge, Z.: Implicit motion handling for video camouflaged object detection. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. pp. 13864–13873 (2022)

work page 2022
[4]

In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Confer- ence on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

Deng, X., Wu, H., Zeng, R., Qin, J.: Memsam: taming segment anything model for echocardiography video segmentation. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Confer- ence on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. pp. 9622–9631 (2024)

work page 2024
[5]

In: Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision

Fan, D.P., Cheng, M.M., Liu, Y., Li, T., Borji, A.: Structure-measure: A new way to evaluate foreground maps. In: Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision. pp. 4548–4557 (2017)

work page 2017
[6]

Scientia Sinica Informationis6(6), 5 (2021)

Fan, D.P., Ji, G.P., Qin, X., Cheng, M.M.: Cognitive vision inspired object seg- mentation metric and loss function. Scientia Sinica Informationis6(6), 5 (2021)

work page 2021

Show all 35 references

[7]

In: International confer- ence on medical image computing and computer-assisted intervention

Fan, D.P., Ji, G.P., Zhou, T., Chen, G., Fu, H., Shen, J., Shao, L.: Pranet: Par- allel reverse attention network for polyp segmentation. In: International confer- ence on medical image computing and computer-assisted intervention. pp. 263–273. Springer (2020)

2020
[8]

Computers in Biology and Medicine148, 105942 (2022)

Feng, K., Ren, L., Wang, G., Wang, H., Li, Y.: Slt-net: A codec network for skin lesion segmentation. Computers in Biology and Medicine148, 105942 (2022)

2022
[9]

Medical & biological engineering & computing58, 709–724 (2020)

Guo, X., Xiao, R., Zhang, T., Chen, C., Wang, J., Wang, Z.: A novel method to model hepatic vascular network using vessel segmentation, thinning, and comple- tion. Medical & biological engineering & computing58, 709–724 (2020)

2020
[10]

In: International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention

Hu, Q., Yi, Z., Zhou, Y., Peng, F., Liu, M., Li, Q., Wang, Z.: Sali: Short-term align- ment and long-term interaction network for colonoscopy video polyp segmentation. In: International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention. pp. 531–541. Spri...

2024
[11]

In: Pro- ceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence

Hu, X., Wang, S., Qin, X., Dai, H., Ren, W., Luo, D., Tai, Y., Shao, L.: High- resolution iterative feedback network for camouflaged object detection. In: Pro- ceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence. vol. 37, pp. 881–889 (2023) 10 F. Author et al

2023
[12]

Machine Intelligence Research 19(6), 531–549 (2022)

Ji, G.P., Xiao, G., Chou, Y.C., Fan, D.P., Zhao, K., Chen, G., Van Gool, L.: Video polyp segmentation: A deep learning perspective. Machine Intelligence Research 19(6), 531–549 (2022)

2022
[13]

Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics p

Li, S., Li, X.G., Zhou, F., Zhang, Y., Bie, Z., Cheng, L., Peng, J., Li, B.: Auto- mated segmentation of liver and hepatic vessels on portal venous phase computed tomography images using a deep learning algorithm. Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics p. e14397 (2024)

2024
[14]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.14276 (2025)

Liang, Y., Li, X., Chen, X., Chen, H., Zheng, Y., Lai, C., Li, B., Xue, X.: Global semantic-guidedsub-imagefeatureweightallocationinhigh-resolutionlargevision- language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.14276 (2025)

2025 arXiv
[15]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.07931 (2024)

Liu, H., Zhang, E., Wu, J., Hong, M., Jin, Y.: Surgical sam 2: Real-time segment anything in surgical video by efficient frame pruning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.07931 (2024)

2024 arXiv
[16]

Liu, Z., Lin, Y., Cao, Y., Hu, H., Wei, Y., Zhang, Z., Lin, S., Guo, B.: Swin transformer:Hierarchical visiontransformerusingshiftedwindows.In:Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision. pp. 10012–10022 (2021)

2021
[17]

In: International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention

Lu, Y., Yang, Y., Xing, Z., Wang, Q., Zhu, L.: Diff-vps: Video polyp segmenta- tion via a multi-task diffusion network with adversarial temporal reasoning. In: International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention. pp. 165–175. Springer (2024)

2024
[18]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.05892 (2024)

Mansoori, M., Shahabodini, S., Abouei, J., Plataniotis, K.N., Mohammadi, A.: Polyp sam 2: Advancing zero shot polyp segmentation in colorectal cancer detec- tion. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.05892 (2024)

2024 arXiv
[20]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.00714 (2024)

Ravi, N., Gabeur, V., Hu, Y.T., Hu, R., Ryali, C., Ma, T., Khedr, H., Rädle, R., Rolland, C., Gustafson, L., et al.: Sam 2: Segment anything in images and videos. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.00714 (2024)

2024 arXiv
[21]

In: International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention

Shi,P., Hu,J., Yang,Y., Gao,Z.,Liu, W.,Ma, T.:Centerlineboundarydiceloss for vascular segmentation. In: International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention. pp. 46–56. Springer (2024)

2024
[22]

World journal of surgery 29, 1384–1396 (2005)

Smyrniotis,V.,Farantos,C.,Kostopanagiotou,G.,Arkadopoulos,N.:Vascularcon- trol during hepatectomy: review of methods and results. World journal of surgery 29, 1384–1396 (2005)

2005
[23]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.02905 (2024)

Tian, K., Jiang, Y., Yuan, Z., Peng, B., Wang, L.: Visual autoregressive modeling: Scalable image generation via next-scale prediction. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.02905 (2024)

2024 arXiv
[24]

In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision

Yang, Y., Aviles-Rivero, A.I., Fu, H., Liu, Y., Wang, W., Zhu, L.: Video adverse- weather-component suppression network via weather messenger and adversarial backpropagation. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision. pp. 13200–13210 (2023)

2023
[25]

In: International Con- ference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention

Yang, Y., Fu, H., Aviles-Rivero, A.I., Schönlieb, C.B., Zhu, L.: Diffmic: Dual- guidance diffusion network for medical image classification. In: International Con- ference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention. pp. 95–105. Springer (2023)

2023
[26]

IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging (2025) HRVVS: A High-resolution Video Vasculature Segmentation Network 11

Yang, Y., Fu, H., Aviles-Rivero, A.I., Xing, Z., Zhu, L.: Diffmic-v2: Medical im- age classification via improved diffusion network. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging (2025) HRVVS: A High-resolution Video Vasculature Segmentation Network 11

2025
[27]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.01057 (2023)

Yang, Y., Wang, S., Liu, L., Hickman, S., Gilbert, F.J., Schönlieb, C.B., Aviles- Rivero, A.I.: Mammodg: Generalisable deep learning breaks the limits of cross- domain multi-center breast cancer screening. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.01057 (2023)

2023 arXiv
[28]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.05742 (2021)

Yang, Y., Wang, S., Zhu, L., Yu, L.: Hcdg: A hierarchical consistency frame- work for domain generalization on medical image segmentation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.05742 (2021)

2021 arXiv
[29]

In: 2024 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recog- nition (CVPR)

Yang, Y., Wu, H., Aviles-Rivero, A.I., Zhang, Y., Qin, J., Zhu, L.: Genuine knowl- edge from practice: Diffusion test-time adaptation for video adverse weather re- moval. In: 2024 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recog- nition (CVPR). pp. 25606–25616. IEEE (2024)

2024
[30]

IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology (2025)

Yang, Y., Xing, Z., Yu, L., Fu, H., Huang, C., Zhu, L.: Vivim: a video vision mamba for ultrasound video segmentation. IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology (2025)

2025
[31]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.14168 (2024)

Yang, Y., Xing, Z., Zhu, L.: Vivim: a video vision mamba for medical video object segmentation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.14168 (2024)

2024 arXiv
[32]

In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

Yu, Q., Zhao, X., Pang, Y., Zhang, L., Lu, H.: Multi-view aggregation network for dichotomous image segmentation. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. pp. 3921–3930 (2024)

2024
[34]

In: International Conference on Medi- cal Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention

Zhang, R., Lai, P., Wan, X., Fan, D.J., Gao, F., Wu, X.J., Li, G.: Lesion-aware dynamic kernel for polyp segmentation. In: International Conference on Medi- cal Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention. pp. 99–109. Springer (2022)

2022
[35]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.00874 (2024)

Zhu, J., Qi, Y., Wu, J.: Medical sam 2: Segment medical images as video via segment anything model 2. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.00874 (2024)

2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [33]

In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition

Zhang, M., Zhang, R., Yang, Y., Bai, H., Zhang, J., Guo, J.: Isnet: Shape matters for infrared small target detection. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. pp. 877–886 (2022)

2022

[2] [19]

In: European Conference on Computer Vision

Qin, X., Dai, H., Hu, X., Fan, D.P., Shao, L., Van Gool, L.: Highly accurate di- chotomous image segmentation. In: European Conference on Computer Vision. pp. 38–56. Springer (2022)

work page 2022

[3] [1]

In: 2009 IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recogni- tion

Achanta, R., Hemami, S., Estrada, F., Susstrunk, S.: Frequency-tuned salient re- gion detection. In: 2009 IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recogni- tion. pp. 1597–1604. IEEE (2009)

work page 2009

[4] [2]

Medical image analysis99, 103371 (2025)

Ali, S., Espinel, Y., Jin, Y., Liu, P., Güttner, B., Zhang, X., Zhang, L., Dowrick, T., Clarkson, M.J., Xiao, S., et al.: An objective comparison of methods for augmented reality in laparoscopic liver resection by preoperative-to-intraoperative image fu- sion from the miccai2022 challenge. Medical image analysis99, 103371 (2025)

work page 2025

[5] [3]

In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

Cheng, X., Xiong, H., Fan, D.P., Zhong, Y., Harandi, M., Drummond, T., Ge, Z.: Implicit motion handling for video camouflaged object detection. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. pp. 13864–13873 (2022)

work page 2022

[6] [4]

In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Confer- ence on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition

Deng, X., Wu, H., Zeng, R., Qin, J.: Memsam: taming segment anything model for echocardiography video segmentation. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Confer- ence on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. pp. 9622–9631 (2024)

work page 2024

[7] [5]

In: Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision

Fan, D.P., Cheng, M.M., Liu, Y., Li, T., Borji, A.: Structure-measure: A new way to evaluate foreground maps. In: Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision. pp. 4548–4557 (2017)

work page 2017

[8] [6]

Scientia Sinica Informationis6(6), 5 (2021)

Fan, D.P., Ji, G.P., Qin, X., Cheng, M.M.: Cognitive vision inspired object seg- mentation metric and loss function. Scientia Sinica Informationis6(6), 5 (2021)

work page 2021