Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 55 references

MultiTaskDeltaNet: Change Detection-based Image Segmentation for Operando ETEM with Application to Carbon Gasification Kinetics

T0 review · 4 major / 5 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 claims that reframing semantic segmentation as change detection, with a Siamese U-Net trained on pairs of video frames, lets it segment small, visually ambiguous reactivity descriptors in low-data operando ETEM videos better…

desk verdict Useful application of change detection to segment small reactivity descriptors in ETEM, but the headline gain over U-Net is not cleanly attributed because the baseline lacks paired input and the best variant is chosen on the test set. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.16803 v1 pith:3KJB76WQ submitted 2025-07-22 eess.IV cs.CV

Yushuo Niu , Tianyu Li , Yuanyuan Zhu , Qian Yang This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.IVcs.CV
keywords changedetectionsemanticsegmentationSiamesenetworkU-Netenvironmentaltransmissionelectronmicroscopyoperandocharacterizationcarbongasificationkineticsmulti-tasklearning
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

Semantic segmentation of small, moving, visually ambiguous features in electron microscopy videos usually needs large labeled datasets, which are rarely available in materials science. This paper claims that the task becomes tractable if it is reframed as change detection: instead of classifying a single frame, a Siamese U-Net is shown pairs of frames from the same reacting filament and labels each pixel as appearing, disappearing, overlapping, or unchanged. The authors report that this change-detection formulation, combined with multi-task prediction of two correlated 'reactivity descriptors' (the whole filament area A1 and the hollow core A2), raises the test F1 for the harder A2 class from 0.763 with a conventional U-Net to 0.841, a relative gain of 10.22%, while A1 performance stays nearly equal. The practical payoff would be automated extraction of filament-specific gasification kinetics from operando environmental TEM videos without manual segmentation.

What carries the argument

The central object is the pairwise change-detection dataset and the Siamese U-Net that consumes it. A frame pair from the same filament at two times is labeled into four change categories for each reactivity descriptor; because the labels are derived purely from existing segmentations, no extra manual annotation is needed, and the pairing multiplies the number of training examples (126 frames become 2,968 pairs). The shared-weight Siamese encoder extracts features from both frames, the concatenated features feed two fully convolutional heads that predict change masks, and segmentation is recovered by taking unions of the change classes. This construction simultaneously augments the small dataset and, through the natural variation between time steps, regularizes the model against overfitting to any single frame.

What would settle it

Train the baseline U-Net on the same 2,968 pairs (for example, by concatenating each pair as a two-channel input while keeping the same backbone capacity and training budget) and measure the test A2 F1. If it reaches or exceeds 0.841, the improvement cannot be attributed to change detection; alternatively, fix model selection on the validation set only and observe whether the 10.22% margin survives.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the pairwise change-detection view, not the segmentation network per se, is what makes low-data segmentation of the small, background-like hollow core A2 succeed. The authors build a dataset of 2,968 training pairs from 126 annotated frames by taking all frame pairs of the same filament; from the two existing segmentations, a pixel in each pair is labeled as appearing, disappearing, overlapping, or no change for each descriptor. A Siamese U-Net with shared weights encodes both frames, and two fully convolutional heads emit the two change masks. Segmentation at any time point is recovered deterministically by merging the appropriate classes (disappearing plus overlapping for the earlier frame; appearing plus overlapping for the later frame), and the paper shows the choice of fusion method (forward, backward, consecutive, ensemble) hardly changes the result. Multi-task training on A1 and A2 together, focal loss for class imbalance, and pre-training the U-Net branches each contribute small gains, with the reported final model chosen for its A2 performance.

Load-bearing premise

The 10.22% gain is attributed to the change-detection architecture, but the comparison is not controlled: MTDN sees 2,968 training pairs derived from 126 frames, whereas the U-Net baseline sees only 126 single frames, and the reported MTDN variant was selected using test-set performance. If a U-Net given the same number of paired or temporally augmented examples, or chosen without test-set peeking, reaches the same A2 F1, the architectural claim would not be established.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the claim holds, automated segmentation of A1 and A2 can replace manual labeling for spatially-resolved gasification kinetics, allowing per-filament measurements across large ETEM video datasets.
  • The change-detection reformulation with pairwise inputs is a template for other microscopy video tasks where objects are small, ambiguous, and sparsely labeled.
  • The task-correlation structure (outer and inner areas of the same object) can be exploited through multi-task learning, suggesting that other physically coupled segmentation targets would benefit similarly.
  • Because segmentation is recovered by unioning change classes, the framework does not accumulate errors over time and works on long sequences without additional annotation.
  • The lightweight backbone and pre-training and fine-tuning recipe make the approach feasible on a single GPU, lowering the barrier for routine use.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper does not directly compare a U-Net trained on the same number of frame pairs, so the attribution of the gain to the architecture itself remains open; a controlled comparison would clarify whether the benefit is from paired data augmentation rather than the Siamese change-detection design.
  • The four-class change representation assumes the two frames are roughly aligned to the same region; if the filament drifts or the field of view shifts, registration before pairing could further improve small-object segmentation, an extension not tested here.
  • The method relies on knowing which frames belong to the same filament, so its practical deployment requires a tracking or masking step; the paper already masks non-target filaments manually, and automation of that step is a natural next problem.
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.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes MultiTaskDeltaNet (MTDN), a Siamese U-Net architecture that reframes semantic segmentation as a change-detection problem on pairs of frames, and applies it to segmenting two 'reactivity descriptors' (A1, the full area, and A2, the hollow core) of filamentous carbon in operando ETEM videos. The authors construct a pairwise dataset from 231 labeled frames spread over seven filaments, derive change-detection labels deterministically from the segmentation labels, and recover segmentation by a fixed union rule. In an evaluation on two test filaments, MTDN is reported to improve the A2 F1 score from 0.763 (U-Net) to 0.841, a relative gain of 10.22%, with comparable performance on A1. The paper also ablates multi-task training, U-Net pretraining, and several fusion methods for converting change predictions to segmentations.

Significance. If the reported improvement is robust, the change-detection reformulation is an interesting and potentially transferable idea for low-data microscopy video segmentation: it augments the effective training set through frame pairing, and the deterministic label transformation makes the pipeline internally consistent rather than circular. The paper also provides a welcome, concrete use case for spatially resolved operando ETEM, and the ablation study at least addresses several components of the design. However, the evaluation as presented is not yet sufficient to support the central architectural claim. The comparison against U-Net is confounded by the fact that MTDN consumes two frames while U-Net consumes one, and the reported variant was selected on the test set. These issues, together with the small test set and the absence of any variance estimates, mean the headline 10.22% figure should be interpreted with caution. The strengths of the paper are the conceptual framing, the multi-task use of A1/A2 correlation, and the potential for reproducibility if code and data are released.

major comments (4)
  1. [3.2 and 2.1.4] Tables 2 and 3 report the headline 10.22% A2 F1 gain over U-Net, but the comparison is confounded: U-Net receives a single 256×256 frame, whereas MTDN receives a pair, and the backward fusion used for the reported model pairs each test frame with the final (nearly empty) frame of the same filament. The improvement could therefore stem from the extra temporal reference or the background prior rather than from the change-detection formulation. Please add a U-Net baseline that consumes the same two-frame input (e.g., channel-wise concatenation or pixel-wise difference) and, ideally, one trained on the same 2,968 pairs, to isolate the architectural contribution.
  2. [3.4.2 and 3.4.3] Tables 5 and 6 show that the reported variant (MTDN_init2 with backward fusion) was selected after examining test-set results across initializations and fusion methods. For example, Table 6 shows that MTDN_init2 with backward fusion has the highest overall F1 (0.89275) among the init2 variants, and Table 5 identifies init2 as the best overall model. Since this selection uses the same test set that is later used for the headline comparison, the reported 10.22% is optimistic. Please move model selection to the validation set, or perform a nested evaluation that reports both validation-based and test-based performance, and explicitly state which decisions were made on test data.
  3. [3.2] The test set comprises only two filaments (IDs 6 and 7, 41 frames), and no variance estimates are provided for the F1/IoU values. With per-frame scores varying strongly over time (Figs. 6 and 7), the aggregate improvement from 0.763 to 0.841 may be driven by a few frames. Please report per-frame distributions and confidence intervals (e.g., bootstrap over frames or filaments), and state the number of frames contributing to each reported total.
  4. [2.1.2 and Table 1] There is an inconsistency in dataset sizes: Section 2.1.2 and Fig. 2 state that the training set has 126 frames (filaments 1–3), while Table 1 reports 231 training frames; 126+64+41=231 suggests the table is mislabeled. Furthermore, the pairwise count of 2,968 for training does not match the number of within-filament frame pairs from 126 frames (for the per-filament counts in the paper, unordered pairs sum to 2,851, and 2,977 including self-pairs). Please correct Table 1 and clarify how the pairwise dataset was constructed (ordered or unordered pairs, and whether self-pairs are included).
minor comments (5)
  1. [3.1, Eqs. (2) and (3)] The formulas for F1 and IoU contain typographical errors: the F1 expression uses |GT ∪ Pred| in the numerator, which should be |GT ∩ Pred|, and the IoU expression writes |GT ∪ Pred| / |GT ∩ Pred|, whereas the correct form is the intersection over the union. Please correct these definitions.
  2. [Abstract and Conclusions] The statements '10.22% performance improvement over conventional segmentation models' should be qualified as the macro F1 improvement for the A2 class on the test set, not a global segmentation gain, to avoid over-generalization.
  3. [2.4] The hyperparameter tuning with Ray Tune is described only by the chosen learning rate and batch size; please report the search space and the metric used for model selection.
  4. [Fig. 2] The caption lists filament IDs in a confusing order ('FilamentID 2 3 4 5 6 7 1') that does not match the main text; please reorder the columns to match the description in Section 2.1.2.
  5. [Data Availability] The Data Availability statement says code and data 'will be made available in a public GitHub repository associated with this paper upon publication'; for the review process, please provide a link or an explicit description of how the data and code can be accessed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the change-detection labels are deterministic encodings of the same segmentation ground truth, and the reported segmentation is recovered by a fixed union rule, so the 10.22% A2 gain is an empirical result rather than an identity forced by construction.

full rationale

MultiTaskDeltaNet's derivation chain is not circular. In Section 2.1.3, the four change categories are computed directly from the original frame labels Ai(t) and Ai(t′), without any further manual labeling, and in Section 2.1.4 segmentation is recovered by the fixed unions of (disappearing ∪ overlapping) and (appearing ∪ overlapping). These are invertible encodings of the same annotation, not fitted parameters renamed as predictions. The model must still learn to map raw image pairs to the change classes, so the F1/IoU values in Tables 2–3 are measured outputs, not quantities forced by the target construction. The paper's self-citations (refs 10, 12–14 for prior ETEM kinetics and ref 51 for change detection) supply motivation and background; none is invoked as a theorem that forces the architectural choice, and the reported performance gain does not reduce to a self-citation chain. The main weaknesses—the single-frame U-Net baseline lacking MTDN's reference-frame input, and selection of the reported MTDN_init2/backward variant from Tables 5–6 based on test-set scores—are experimental-design and selection-bias concerns, not circularity. Addressing them would require paired-input baselines and validation-based selection, but that is a matter of evidence quality rather than a reduction of the result to its own inputs.

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

The central claim does not introduce physical entities or fitted constants. It rests on supervised learning assumptions, the accuracy of manual annotations, the validity of the area-to-volume conversion, and the sufficiency of the frame sampling rate. The most consequential implicit premise is that the comparison with single-frame U-Net isolates the effect of the change-detection architecture.

free parameters (3)
  • learning_rate = 0.00095
    Selected by Ray Tune on the validation split; affects the trained model but is not a scientific constant.
  • batch_size = 16
    Selected by Ray Tune; part of the training setup.
  • focal loss alpha_i and gamma = not reported
    Class weighting and focusing parameters in Eq. 1 are not specified; they influence training on the imbalanced change detection labels.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Manually annotated A1 and A2 masks are accurate ground truth.
    Section 2.1.1 describes joint annotation by two researchers over multiple passes, but no inter-annotator agreement is reported.
  • domain assumption Frames sampled every 20-60 seconds capture the gasification dynamics relevant for change labels.
    Section 2.1.1: if the filament changes faster than the sampling interval, the appearing/disappearing labels will miss intermediate states.
  • domain assumption The ex-situ area-to-volume conversion applies to in-situ ETEM filaments.
    Section 1 and Fig. 1b: volume is computed from A1 and A2 via an area-to-volume conversion following ref 46; nanoscale validity is assumed.
  • standard math Focal loss is an appropriate loss for this class-imbalanced task.
    Eq. 1: a standard modification of cross-entropy, not a new assumption.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of MultiTaskDeltaNet: Change Detection-based Image Segmentation for Operando ETEM with Application to Carbon Gasification Kinetics." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3KJB76WQ

@misc{pith2026250716803,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: MultiTaskDeltaNet: Change Detection-based Image Segmentation for Operando ETEM with Application to Carbon Gasification Kinetics},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3KJB76WQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.16803}
}
read the original abstract

Transforming in-situ transmission electron microscopy (TEM) imaging into a tool for spatially-resolved operando characterization of solid-state reactions requires automated, high-precision semantic segmentation of dynamically evolving features. However, traditional deep learning methods for semantic segmentation often encounter limitations due to the scarcity of labeled data, visually ambiguous features of interest, and small-object scenarios. To tackle these challenges, we introduce MultiTaskDeltaNet (MTDN), a novel deep learning architecture that creatively reconceptualizes the segmentation task as a change detection problem. By implementing a unique Siamese network with a U-Net backbone and using paired images to capture feature changes, MTDN effectively utilizes minimal data to produce high-quality segmentations. Furthermore, MTDN utilizes a multi-task learning strategy to leverage correlations between physical features of interest. In an evaluation using data from in-situ environmental TEM (ETEM) videos of filamentous carbon gasification, MTDN demonstrated a significant advantage over conventional segmentation models, particularly in accurately delineating fine structural features. Notably, MTDN achieved a 10.22% performance improvement over conventional segmentation models in predicting small and visually ambiguous physical features. This work bridges several key gaps between deep learning and practical TEM image analysis, advancing automated characterization of nanomaterials in complex experimental settings.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 50 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    S. W. Chee, T. Lunkenbein, R. Schlögl and B. Roldán Cuenya, Chemical Reviews, 2023, 123, 13374--13418

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    Y. Yang, J. Feijóo, V. Briega-Martos, Q. Li, M. Krumov, S. Merkens, G. De Salvo, A. Chuvilin, J. Jin, H. Huang, C. J. Pollock, M. B. Salmeron, C. Wang, D. A. Muller, H. D. Abruña and P. Yang, Current Opinion in Electrochemistry, 2023, 42,

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    Zheng, MRS Bulletin, 2021, 46, 443--450

    H. Zheng, MRS Bulletin, 2021, 46, 443--450

    work page 2021

  4. [4]

    J. R. Jinschek, S. Helveg, L. F. Allard, J. A. Dionne, Y. Zhu and P. A. Crozier, MRS Bulletin, 2024, 49, 174--183

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    B. K. Miller and P. A. Crozier, Microscopy and Microanalysis, 2014, 20, 815--824

    work page 2014

  6. [6]

    S. B. Vendelbo, C. F. Elkjaer, H. Falsig, I. Puspitasari, P. Dona, L. Mele, B. Morana, B. J. Nelissen, R. van Rijn, J. F. Creemer, P. J. Kooyman and S. Helveg, Nature Materials, 2014, 13, 884--890

    work page 2014

  7. [7]

    Chenna and P

    S. Chenna and P. A. Crozier, ACS Catalysis, 2012, 2, 2395--2402

    work page 2012

  8. [8]

    Jeangros, T

    Q. Jeangros, T. W. Hansen, J. B. Wagner, R. E. Dunin-Borkowski, C. Hébert, J. Van Herle and A. Hessler-Wyser, Acta Materialia, 2014, 67, 362--372

    work page 2014

Show all 55 references
  1. [9]

    J. Yu, W. Yuan, H. Yang, Q. Xu, Y. Wang and Z. Zhang, Angewandte Chemie International Edition, 2018, 57, 11344--11348

    2018

  2. [10]

    Sainju, W.-Y

    R. Sainju, W.-Y. Chen, S. Schaefer, Q. Yang, C. Ding, M. Li and Y. Zhu, Scientific reports, 2022, 12, 15705

    2022

  3. [11]

    J. P. Horwath, D. N. Zakharov, R. M \'e gret and E. A. Stach, npj Computational Materials, 2020, 6, 108

    2020

  4. [12]

    M. R. Nielsen, S. March, R. Sainju, C. Zhu, P.-X. Gao, S. L. Suib and Y. Zhu, Microscopy and Microanalysis, 2023, 29, 1296--1297

    2023

  5. [13]

    M. R. Nielsen, T. Li, R. Sainju, S. March, C. Zhu, P. Gao, S. Suib and Y. Zhu, Available at SSRN 5129113, 2025

    2025

  6. [14]

    Sainju, M

    R. Sainju, M. Patino, M. J. Baldwin, O. E. Atwani, R. Kolasinski and Y. Zhu, Acta Materialia, 2024, 278, 120282

    2024

  7. [15]

    J. Long, E. Shelhamer and T. Darrell, Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2015, pp. 3431--3440

    2015

  8. [16]

    Milletari, N

    F. Milletari, N. Navab and S.-A. Ahmadi, 2016 fourth international conference on 3D vision (3DV), 2016, pp. 565--571

    2016

  9. [17]

    Ronneberger, P

    O. Ronneberger, P. Fischer and T. Brox, Medical image computing and computer-assisted intervention--MICCAI 2015: 18th international conference, Munich, Germany, October 5-9, 2015, proceedings, part III 18, 2015, pp. 234--241

    2015

  10. [18]

    Dosovitskiy, L

    A. Dosovitskiy, L. Beyer, A. Kolesnikov, D. Weissenborn, X. Zhai, T. Unterthiner, M. Dehghani, M. Minderer, G. Heigold, S. Gelly, J. Uszkoreit and N. Houlsby, International Conference on Learning Representations, 2021

    2021

  11. [19]

    Yu and V

    F. Yu and V. Koltun, 4th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2016, San Juan, Puerto Rico, May 2-4, 2016, Conference Track Proceedings, 2016

    2016

  12. [20]

    L.-C. Chen, Y. Zhu, G. Papandreou, F. Schroff and H. Adam, Proceedings of the European conference on computer vision (ECCV), 2018, pp. 801--818

    2018

  13. [21]

    K. He, X. Zhang, S. Ren and J. Sun, Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2016, pp. 770--778

    2016

  14. [22]

    Zhang, Q

    Z. Zhang, Q. Liu and Y. Wang, IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters, 2018, 15, 749--753

    2018

  15. [23]

    Huang, Z

    G. Huang, Z. Liu, L. Van Der Maaten and K. Q. Weinberger, Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, 2017, pp. 4700--4708

    2017

  16. [24]

    X. Li, H. Chen, X. Qi, Q. Dou, C.-W. Fu and P.-A. Heng, IEEE transactions on medical imaging, 2018, 37, 2663--2674

    2018

  17. [25]

    Roberts, S

    G. Roberts, S. Y. Haile, R. Sainju, D. J. Edwards, B. Hutchinson and Y. Zhu, Scientific reports, 2019, 9, 12744

    2019

  18. [26]

    A. G. Howard, M. Zhu, B. Chen, D. Kalenichenko, W. Wang, T. Weyand, M. Andreetto and H. Adam, arXiv preprint arXiv:1704.04861, 2017

    2017 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Zunair and A

    H. Zunair and A. B. Hamza, Computers in biology and medicine, 2021, 136, 104699

    2021

  20. [28]

    S. Woo, J. Park, J.-Y. Lee and I. S. Kweon, Proceedings of the European conference on computer vision (ECCV), 2018, pp. 3--19

    2018

  21. [29]

    Oktay, J

    O. Oktay, J. Schlemper, L. L. Folgoc, M. Lee, M. Heinrich, K. Misawa, K. Mori, S. McDonagh, N. Y. Hammerla, B. Kainz et al., arXiv preprint arXiv:1804.03999, 2018, 10,

    2018 arXiv

  22. [30]

    J. Chen, Y. Lu, Q. Yu, X. Luo, E. Adeli, Y. Wang, L. Lu, A. L. Yuille and Y. Zhou, arXiv preprint arXiv:2102.04306, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  23. [31]

    H. Cao, Y. Wang, J. Chen, D. Jiang, X. Zhang, Q. Tian and M. Wang, European conference on computer vision, 2022, pp. 205--218

    2022

  24. [32]

    Ziatdinov, O

    M. Ziatdinov, O. Dyck, A. Maksov, X. Li, X. Sang, K. Xiao, R. R. Unocic, R. Vasudevan, S. Jesse and S. V. Kalinin, ACS nano, 2017, 11, 12742--12752

    2017

  25. [33]

    Kirillov, E

    A. Kirillov, E. Mintun, N. Ravi, H. Mao, C. Rolland, L. Gustafson, T. Xiao, S. Whitehead, A. C. Berg, W.-Y. Lo et al., Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, 2023, pp. 4015--4026

    2023

  26. [34]

    M. A. Mazurowski, H. Dong, H. Gu, J. Yang, N. Konz and Y. Zhang, Medical Image Analysis, 2023, 89, 102918

    2023

  27. [35]

    J. Ma, Y. He, F. Li, L. Han, C. You and B. Wang, Nature Communications, 2024, 15, 654

    2024

  28. [36]

    Y. Li, M. Hu and X. Yang, Medical Imaging 2024: Computer-Aided Diagnosis, 2024, pp. 759--765

    2024

  29. [37]

    J. Wu, Z. Wang, M. Hong, W. Ji, H. Fu, Y. Xu, M. Xu and Y. Jin, Medical Image Analysis, 2025, 103547

    2025

  30. [38]

    T. Chen, S. Kornblith, M. Norouzi and G. Hinton, International conference on machine learning, 2020, pp. 1597--1607

    2020

  31. [39]

    S. Lu, B. Montz, T. Emrick and A. Jayaraman, Digital Discovery, 2022, 1, 816--833

    2022

  32. [40]

    Zbontar, L

    J. Zbontar, L. Jing, I. Misra, Y. LeCun and S. Deny, International conference on machine learning, 2021, pp. 12310--12320

    2021

  33. [41]

    Konstantakos, J

    S. Konstantakos, J. Cani, I. Mademlis, D. I. Chalkiadaki, Y. M. Asano, E. Gavves and G. T. Papadopoulos, Neurocomputing, 2025, 620, 129199

    2025

  34. [42]

    Z. Xie, Z. Zhang, Y. Cao, Y. Lin, Y. Wei, Q. Dai and H. Hu, 2023 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2023, 10365--10374

    2023

  35. [43]

    El - Nouby, G

    A. El - Nouby, G. Izacard, H. Touvron, I. Laptev, H. J \' e gou and E. Grave, CoRR, 2021, abs/2112.10740,

    2021 arXiv

  36. [44]

    A. J. Mart \' n, S. Mitchell, C. Mondelli, S. Jaydev and J. P \'e rez-Ram \' rez, Nature Catalysis, 2022, 5, 854--866

    2022

  37. [45]

    R. Wang, S. Cao, K. Ma, Y. Zheng and D. Meng, Medical Image Analysis, 2021, 67, 101876

    2021

  38. [46]

    Alenazey, C

    F. Alenazey, C. G. Cooper, C. B. Dave, S. S. E. H. Elnashaie, A. A. Susu and A. A. Adesina, Catalysis Communications, 2009, 10, 406--411

    2009

  39. [47]

    K. Tong, Y. Wu and F. Zhou, Image and Vision Computing, 2020, 97,

    2020

  40. [48]

    X. Lu, W. Wang, J. Shen, D. Crandall and J. Luo, IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelligence, 2020, 44, 2228--2242

    2020

  41. [49]

    Zhang, L

    Z. Zhang, L. Sun, L. Si and C. Zheng, 2021 IEEE 6th International Conference on Computer and Communication Systems (ICCCS), 2021, pp. 335--340

    2021

  42. [50]

    C. Xie, H. Liu, S. Cao, D. Wei, K. Ma, L. Wang and Y. Zheng, 2021 IEEE 18th International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging (ISBI), 2021, pp. 38--41

    2021

  43. [51]

    Y. Niu, E. Chadwick, A. W. Ma and Q. Yang, International Conference on Computer Vision Systems, 2023, pp. 183--196

    2023

  44. [52]

    H. Kim, B. K. Karaman, Q. Zhao, A. Q. Wang, M. R. Sabuncu and A. D. N. Initiative, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2025, 122, e2411492122

    2025

  45. [53]

    T.-Y. Lin, P. Goyal, R. Girshick, K. He and P. Doll \'a r, Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision, 2017, pp. 2980--2988

    2017

  46. [54]

    R. Liaw, E. Liang, R. Nishihara, P. Moritz, J. E. Gonzalez and I. Stoica, arXiv preprint arXiv:1807.05118, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  47. [55]

    , if a pixel is present in A_i(t') but not in A_i(t) . - Category ``disappearing

    L. Yao, Z. Ou, B. Luo, C. Xu and Q. Chen, ACS central science, 2020, 6, 1421--1430 mcitethebibliography main.tex0000664000000000000000000016316115037746261011247 0ustar rootroot [twoside,twocolumn,9pt] article extsizes [super,sort&compress,comma] natbib [version=3] mhchem [lef...

    2020

Pith tools

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