Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 69 references

NeuroRefiner: Morphology-Aware Multi-Agent Refinement for 3D Fluorescence Microscopy Neuron Segmentation

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that a three-agent loop—global inspection, instruction generation, change validation—around a text-guided 3D editing network can refine fragmented neuron segmentations into topologically cleaner masks and outperform…

desk verdict Solid, well-ablated agent-based refinement system for neuron segmentation with plausible gains, but the 2D-MIP depth localization is an unmeasured risk that keeps me from fully trusting the headline ZBFWB number. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.09636 v1 pith:OXGEE4JA submitted 2026-08-10 cs.CV cs.AI

Haiyang Yan , Jinyue Guo , Yanchao Zhang , Bingqing Wang , Zhenchen Li , Jing Liu , Jiazheng Liu , Linlin Li
show 1 more author
Hua Han
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CVcs.AI
keywords neuronsegmentation3Dfluorescencemicroscopymulti-agentsystemrefinementtopologicalcorrectnessconnectedcomponentsinstruction-guidededitingvision-languagemodel
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 tries to establish that fragmented 3D neuron segmentations in fluorescence microscopy can be repaired by a closed multi-agent loop instead of by a larger single-pass network. The loop works by inspecting the whole mask for regions that violate a simple topological prior, asking a vision-language agent to describe the defect and the needed edit in natural language, executing that edit with a small 3D U-Net that fuses the text instruction into its features, and accepting the edit only after a second agent confirms both instruction adherence and topological improvement. On three public benchmarks the loop outperforms the compared single-pass segmenters and existing refinement methods, and on the hardest benchmark it raises the F1 score of a 3D U-Net segmentation from about 83% to 86%, a 3.02-percentage-point gain over the strongest prior result. The point of caring is practical: if this holds, a general-purpose language-model reasoner plus a small bespoke editing tool can correct topological errors that end-to-end networks leave behind, with each edit auditable because it is tied to an explicit instruction.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is a division of labor around a single instruction-guided edit tool. The Global Inspector uses the 0th Betti number, $\beta_0(b_i)$, which counts the connected components in each 3D sub-block, as a cheap topological alarm: too many fragments means either a false negative (broken neurite) or a false positive (noise), and the inspector labels the block accordingly. The Refinement Advisor compresses each flagged block into two orthogonal maximum-intensity projections, XY and YZ, so it can name the defect's planar position and depth in words. Those words enter TopoRefineNet through a frozen text encoder and a cross-attention layer, which recalibrates the visual features so the decoder knows where and what to edit. The Change Validator applies the explicit rule that an edit is accepted if and only if it follows the instruction and improves or preserves topological quality, which is what lets the loop iterate safely up to a fixed number of rounds.

What would settle it

Build a test set of synthetic volumes where two straight neurites cross in the XY projection but occupy different z-planes, run NeuroRefiner on each, and count how often the edit changes the correct z-range; if the hit rate is near chance in exactly those crossing cases, the projection-based localization premise fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that segmentation refinement for sparse filamentous neurons should be formalized as the human expert's workflow of global observation followed by local editing, and that this can be automated without training the reasoning agents. NeuroRefiner divides the job among three agents: the Global Inspector finds suspicious sub-blocks and labels each as a false positive or false negative; the Refinement Advisor looks at the corresponding XY and YZ maximum-intensity projections and writes an instruction that names both a spatial location and an operation such as "connect" or "remove"; and the Change Validator approves the edit only when it obeys the instruction and leaves the topology no worse. The voxel-level executor, TopoRefineNet, is a 3D U-Net with cross-attention between image features and a frozen text encoder, so the instruction itself controls which regions are added or deleted. On the three public benchmarks the complete pipeline is reported to raise F1 above every compared method, with the largest absolute improvement on the most challenging dataset.

Load-bearing premise

The whole gain depends on the agents finding the right depth layer of a defect from flat projection images, a step the paper's own limitation section says loses depth information in dense regions.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • An existing 3D U-Net segmentation can be upgraded at test time by attaching the agent loop, without retraining the base segmenter.
  • Every accepted edit carries a natural-language reason, so the refinement chain is auditable rather than a black-box correction.
  • The loop's gain is attributed to the multi-agent structure and the TopoRefineNet tool, not to a particular vision-language model, since weaker foundation models still improve over the baseline.
  • Gains saturate by about five rounds, which bounds the compute cost of deployment.
  • Topological metrics such as spatial distance and missing or extra structure length improve along with voxel F1, meaning the fix is not just boundary smoothing.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural test of the central premise is to run the pipeline on synthetic volumes with neurites that overlap in the XY projection but lie in different z-planes; if depth localization from maximum-intensity projection fails, these are exactly the cases where the wrong z-slab gets edited.
  • The same three-agent loop should transfer to other filamentary 3D structures, such as vasculature or root systems, because the topological prior and the instruction vocabulary are not neuron-specific.
  • The Change Validator's accept criterion is already symbolic, so a cheaper variant could replace the vision-language validator with a direct comparison of connected-component counts before and after each edit.
  • A useful diagnostic would be an oracle study measuring how often the Refinement Advisor's instructions identify the true defect location; the paper does not report that, and it would separate reasoning errors from editing errors.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. NeuroRefiner proposes a multi-agent pipeline for refining 3D fluorescence microscopy neuron segmentations. Three LLM-based agents (Global Inspector, Refinement Advisor, Change Validator) coordinate with a trainable 3D U-Net tool, TopoRefineNet, which executes natural-language editing instructions at the voxel level. The method is evaluated on BigNeuron, CWMBS, and ZBFWB, reporting consistent F1 improvements over segmentation and refinement baselines, with a headline 3.02% F1 gain over GBP-Net on ZBFWB. The paper also provides ablations isolating the contribution of each agent and of the two-stage training protocol. The central claim is that the closed-loop agent–tool interaction yields topologically more accurate segmentations than single-pass and existing refinement approaches.

Significance. If the reported results are reliable, NeuroRefiner is a valuable contribution: it is one of the first systems to combine LLM-based multi-agent reasoning with a domain-specific 3D editing network for neuron segmentation, and the design explicitly targets topological defects (fragmentation, false positives) that are persistent weaknesses of single-pass segmentation. The two-stage training from synthetic defects to real, curated masks is a thoughtful strategy for grounding text-conditioned editing, and the inclusion of full prompts in the appendix strengthens reproducibility. The system's modularity and foundation-model agnosticism (Table 4) are also positive features. However, the central claim rests on a projection-based localization assumption that the paper itself concedes is lossy, and the quantitative evaluation lacks error bars or significance tests despite the stochasticity of LLM reasoning. The work is therefore promising but not yet fully demonstrated.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.2, Eq. (3)–(4); Limitation] The depth-localization assumption is load-bearing but not tested. The Refinement Advisor receives only XY and YZ MIPs (Eq. 3) and must convert a coarse directional phrase (e.g., 'rear') into a concrete 3D edit region, while the Change Validator, as formalized in Eq. (4) with M_xy_i, compares only 2D projections and cannot detect errors that are mislocalized along the collapsed axis. The Limitation paragraph explicitly states that '2D MIP ... loses depth information in dense regions, hindering precise 3D error localization.' The manuscript provides no measurement of how often the z-slab inferred by the Advisor matches the true defect slab, nor any ablation with depth-aware inputs (e.g., full 3D context or depth-encoded projections). The reported ZBFWB gains, where long-range overlapping projections are the most challenging, could be inflated by a failure mode that is not captured by the current metrics. Please add a quantitative analysis of z-localization accuracy, or a variant that supplies depth information, to show that the pipeline's gains are not an artifact of projection-based reasoning.
  2. [Tables 1–4] The results are reported as single-point metrics without error bars or significance tests. The LLM agent reasoning is stochastic (temperature sampling, retry loops), so the headline 3.02% F1 margin over GBP-Net and the ablation differences (e.g., Table 3, full system vs. third row: 2.66% on ZBFWB) could fall within run-to-run variability. Please report the mean and standard deviation over at least 5 independent runs (or fixed-seed reruns of the LLM calls) and provide a paired significance test (e.g., Wilcoxon signed-rank or bootstrap) for the main comparisons. This is essential for the central 'outperforms SOTA' claim, especially for differences in the 1–3% range.
  3. [§2, Tables 1–2] The paper cites and critiques recent LLM-driven agent methods for biomedical segmentation (Ophiuchus [16], IBISAgent [15], GenCellAgent [45]) but does not compare NeuroRefiner against any of them in the quantitative experiments. Since the claimed novelty and the paper's title are centered on a multi-agent design, the absence of these closest baselines leaves the 'outperforms state-of-the-art methods' claim incomplete. If those methods are not directly applicable to 3D neuron volumes, please state so explicitly and, where possible, report their performance on at least one of the three benchmarks after adapting them to 3D in the same way as the other refinement baselines.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Fig. 5 caption] The line after 'Fig.5:Ablation Study on Iteration NumbersT max.' contains a long run of '/uni00000013/uni00000014/...' which appears to be a corrupted LaTeX artifact; this should be removed in the final version.
  2. [§4.1, Details] The Global Inspector operates on 128×128 pixel blocks of the XY MIP, while TopoRefineNet's training uses 128×128×64 volumes; please clarify the z-extent of the 3D sub-block that corresponds to a detected 2D block, and how the Refinement Advisor's 'front/rear' phrase is mapped to a concrete z-slab index.
  3. [Table 3] The fourth row (Global Inspector + Change Validator, without Refinement Advisor) is not discussed in the text; adding a sentence interpreting this configuration would make the ablation easier to follow.
  4. [§4.1, Metrics] MES is described as quantifying the lengths of missing and extra structures; please state the unit or normalization used, since MES values are compared across datasets with different physical resolutions.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: NeuroRefiner's reported gains are held-out benchmark results with ablations, not derivations equivalent to its inputs.

full rationale

NeuroRefiner does not derive its central claim from its own inputs. The reported F1/SSD/MES improvements are measured on established BigNeuron, CWMBS, and ZBFWB splits against published baselines, and the headline ZBFWB number (F1 86.13 vs GBP-Net 83.11) is an empirical benchmark outcome, not an algebraic consequence of any definition. The only places where the system is coupled to evaluation metrics are the Global Inspector's use of beta0 = CC(M_i) as a heuristic for flagging candidate blocks and the Stage-2 curation of TopoRefineNet training examples by connected-component and F1 scores; neither makes the held-out test evaluation an identity, since the test results are on unseen volumes and Table 3 shows incremental contributions of each agent. Self-citations to prior work (e.g., GBP-Net [42]) function as comparative baselines and split definitions, not as load-bearing justifications of the new claims. The acknowledged limitation that '2D MIP ... loses depth information in dense regions' is a substantive correctness risk about z-localization, but it does not amount to circularity: the pipeline could fail for that reason and the derivation would still not be equivalent to its input.

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

The core contribution rests on four assumptions about topology signals and LLM reliability, plus several hand-set hyperparameters; the empirical performance is the evidence for most of these assumptions.

free parameters (4)
  • Maximum iterations T_max = 5
    Set from the ablation in Fig. 5; affects how many refinement rounds are applied and influences final gains.
  • Global Inspector sub-block size = 128 x 128 pixels
    Chosen as the fundamental unit for error detection in Section 4.1; not derived from data.
  • Synthetic defect augmentation kernel size k = 5 to 20 voxels, random
    Erosion kernel range for generating false-negative breaks in Stage 1 training (Section 4.1); hand-chosen.
  • Training data curation criterion = unspecified threshold; 5,310 volumes selected
    Stage 2 training examples chosen by connected-component and F1 scores, but exact thresholds are not reported; this selection uses evaluation metrics.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Betti number beta0(bi)=CC(Mi) is a reliable indicator of topological error; elevated connected-component count implies defects.
    Used in Algorithm 1 and Eq. 2 to select blocks for refinement; fragments can also arise from genuine multi-branch morphology, so high CC does not always mean error.
  • domain assumption Maximum intensity projection along z (and later x) preserves enough 3D continuity information for the VLM to localize defects in XY and YZ planes.
    The paper's Limitation concedes MIP loses depth in dense regions; without accurate 3D localization, Refinement Advisor instructions would mis-target edits.
  • domain assumption An off-the-shelf Qwen3-VL-8B can act as inspector, advisor, and validator without any training, and its textual instructions are semantically executable by TopoRefineNet.
    The whole loop is prompt-only for agents; if the VLM misjudges topology or emits ambiguous instructions, refinement quality collapses. Ablations show gains vary with foundation model.
  • domain assumption The synthetic defects (erosion, copy-paste, Gaussian noise) plus curated real defects are representative of test-time topological errors across BigNeuron, CWMBS, and ZBFWB.
    Two-stage training relies on this transfer; the single-stage comparison shows the training strategy matters, but representativeness is not directly verified.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of NeuroRefiner: Morphology-Aware Multi-Agent Refinement for 3D Fluorescence Microscopy Neuron Segmentation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OXGEE4JA

@misc{pith2026260809636,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: NeuroRefiner: Morphology-Aware Multi-Agent Refinement for 3D Fluorescence Microscopy Neuron Segmentation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OXGEE4JA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.09636}
}
read the original abstract

Accurate 3D neuron segmentation in fluorescence microscopy is critical for neuroscience. However, the sparse and elongated morphology of neurons poses significant challenges to existing segmentation methods. These methods struggle to preserve both local details and global topology, leading to fragmented results. To address this, we propose NeuroRefiner, a multi-agent system that formalizes the human expert workflow involving iterative global observation and local editing. Specifically, NeuroRefiner comprises three collaborative agents dedicated to diagnosing topological errors, generating correction instructions, and validating refinement quality. To facilitate agent instruction-guided segmentation refinement, we propose TopoRefineNet, a dedicated 3D U-Net-based tool that leverages cross-modality feature fusion to generate refined masks. Through multi-round agent reasoning and voxel-level editing, NeuroRefiner produces topologically more accurate segmentations with enhanced interpretability. Experiments on the BigNeuron, CWMBS, and ZBFWB datasets demonstrate that NeuroRefiner outperforms state-of-the-art methods, notably achieving a 3.02% improvement in F1 score on the challenging ZBFWB dataset.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.09636 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a) Mainstream neuron segmentation paradigms. Sliding window-based meth￾ods fail to preserve holistic neuronal morphology. Moreover, a single forward pass can￾not rectify segmentation errors and lacks interpretability. (b) Overview of NeuroRefiner. By combining global topological observation with local fine-grained refinement, it gen￾erates continuous segmentation results consistent with topological priors. The expl… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Collaborative NeuroRefiner workflow. The system performs multi-round refine￾ment via the interaction of agents and TopoRefineNet to obtain topologically complete segmentation results. 3 Method Sec. 3.1 describes the collaborative mechanism among agents in NeuroRefiner. Sec. 3.2 details the design of each individual agent and Sec. 3.3 presents the architecture and training strategy of our proposed tool, TopoRefineNet… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (a) Architecture of TopoRefineNet. The image and instruction are encoded by their respective encoders, fused via cross-attention, and decoded to generate the cor￾rected mask. (b) The proposed two-stage training paradigm. The first stage is trained on synthetic defects, while the second stage utilizes real masks with defects. \mathbf {F}_L^{\prime v}= \text {CrossAttn}(\mathbf {F}_L^v, \mathbf {F}^t) = \text {softmax… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Qualitative comparison of original images, ground truth, and segmentation results on the ZBFWB dataset. The orange boxes highlight regions with weak signals. Our method preserves the complete neuronal structure and yields superior performance [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Ablation Study on Iteration Num￾bers Tmax. additional gains of 2.66% and 1.68%. Ultimately, the full system achieves opti￾mal performance, confirming that synergistic collaboration is essential for robust, high-fidelity neuron segmentation refinement [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

69 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages

  1. [16]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.14157 (2025) 16 H

    Jiang, Y., Zhang, Y., Zhang, P., Li, Y., Chen, J., Shi, X., Zhen, S.: Incentivizing tool-augmented thinking with images for medical image analysis. arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.14157 (2025) 16 H. Yan et al

    arXiv 2025

  2. [15]

    IBISAgent: Reinforcing Pixel-Level Visual Reasoning in MLLMs for Universal Biomedical Object Referring and Segmentation

    Jiang, Y., Li, Q., Xu, B., Sun, H., Ding, C., Dong, J., Cai, Y., Zhang, X., Yin, J.: Ibisagent: Reinforcing pixel-level visual reasoning in mllms for universal biomedical object referring and segmentation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.03054 (2026)

    work page Pith review arXiv 2026

  3. [45]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.13896 (2025)

    Yu, X., Yang, Y., Liu, Q., Du, Y., McSweeney, S., Lin, Y.: Gencellagent: General- izable, training-free cellular image segmentation via large language model agents. arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.13896 (2025)

    arXiv 2025

  4. [1]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.21631 (2025)

    Bai, S., Cai, Y., Chen, R., Chen, K., Chen, X., Cheng, Z., Deng, L., Ding, W., Gao, C., Ge, C., et al.: Qwen3-vl technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.21631 (2025)

    arXiv 2025

  5. [2]

    5-vl technical report

    Bai, S., Chen, K., Liu, X., Wang, J., Ge, W., Song, S., Dang, K., Wang, P., Wang, S., Tang, J., et al.: Qwen2. 5-vl technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.13923 (2025)

    arXiv 2025

  6. [3]

    Balsiger, F., Soom, Y., Scheidegger, O., Reyes, M.: Learning shape representation on sparse point clouds for volumetric image segmentation (2019)

    work page 2019

  7. [4]

    Computers in Biology and Medicine p

    Chen, R., Liu, M., Chen, W., Wang, Y., Meijering, E.: Deep learning in mesoscale brain microscopy image analysis: A review. Computers in Biology and Medicine p. 107617 (2023)

    work page 2023

  8. [5]

    IEEE Trans

    Chen, X., Zhang, C., Zhao, J., Xiong, Z., Zha, Z.J., Wu, F.: Weakly supervised neuron reconstruction from optical microscopy images with morphological priors. IEEE Trans. Med. Imag.40(11), 3205–3216 (2021)

    work page 2021

Show all 69 references
  1. [6]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.04148 (2023)

    Chen, Y., Huang, W., Zhou, S., Chen, Q., Xiong, Z.: Self-supervised neu- ron segmentation with multi-agent reinforcement learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.04148 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  2. [7]

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

    Çiçek, Ö., Abdulkadir, A., Lienkamp, S.S., Brox, T., Ronneberger, O.: 3d u-net: learning dense volumetric segmentation from sparse annotation. In: International conference on medical image computing and computer-assisted intervention. pp. 424–432. Springer (2016)

    2016

  3. [8]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.11427 (2022)

    Couairon, G., Verbeek, J., Schwenk, H., Cord, M.: Diffedit: Diffusion-based seman- tic image editing with mask guidance. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.11427 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  4. [9]

    bioRxiv pp

    Du, X., Yue, Z., Wei, J., Li, W., Chen, M., Chen, T., Hu, H., Ren, H., Jia, Z., Ning, X., et al.: Central nervous system atlas of larval zebrafish constructed using the morphology of single excitatory and inhibitory neurons. bioRxiv pp. 2025–06 (2025)

    2025

  5. [10]

    Nature Methods21(10), 1926–1935 (2024)

    Gou, L., Wang, Y., Gao, L., Zhong, Y., Xie, L., Wang, H., Zha, X., Shao, Y., Xu, H., Xu, X., et al.: Gapr for large-scale collaborative single-neuron reconstruction. Nature Methods21(10), 1926–1935 (2024)

    2024

  6. [11]

    In: International MICCAI brainlesion workshop

    Hatamizadeh, A., Nath, V., Tang, Y., Yang, D., Roth, H.R., Xu, D.: Swin unetr: Swin transformers for semantic segmentation of brain tumors in mri images. In: International MICCAI brainlesion workshop. pp. 272–284. Springer (2021)

    2021

  7. [12]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF winter conference on applications of computer vi- sion

    Hatamizadeh, A., Tang, Y., Nath, V., Yang, D., Myronenko, A., Landman, B., Roth, H.R., Xu, D.: Unetr: Transformers for 3d medical image segmentation. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF winter conference on applications of computer vi- sion. pp. 574–584 (2022)

    2022

  8. [13]

    Nature Methods18(2), 203–211 (2021)

    Isensee, F., Jaeger, P.F., Kohl, S.A., Petersen, J., Maier-Hein, K.H.: nnU-Net: A self-configuring method for deep learning-based biomedical image segmentation. Nature Methods18(2), 203–211 (2021)

    2021

  9. [14]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.15929 (2026)

    Jiang, L., Lu, Y., Zhang, Y., Liu, J., Han, H.: Neuromamba: Multi-perspective feature interaction with visual mamba for neuron segmentation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.15929 (2026)

    2026

  10. [17]

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

    Ke, L., Danelljan, M., Li, X., Tai, Y.W., Tang, C.K., Yu, F.: Mask transfiner for high-quality instance segmentation. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. pp. 4412–4421 (2022)

    2022

  11. [18]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.13063 (2025)

    Li, Z., Chen, H., Sun, Z., Li, K., Hu, X.: Fgnet: Leveraging feature-guided attention to refine sam2 for 3d em neuron segmentation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.13063 (2025)

    2025

  12. [19]

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

    Liao, X., Li, W., Xu, Q., Wang, X., Jin, B., Zhang, X., Wang, Y., Zhang, Y.: Iteratively-refined interactive 3d medical image segmentation with multi-agent re- inforcement learning. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. pp. 9394...

    2020

  13. [20]

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

    Liu,C.,Jiang,Y.,Zheng,N.:Netracer:Atopology-awareiterativetracingapproach for tubular structure extraction. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision. pp. 20593–20602 (2025)

    2025

  14. [21]

    In: Proc

    Liu, M., Luo, H., Tan, Y., Wang, X., Chen, W.: Improved v-net based image segmentation for 3D neuron reconstruction. In: Proc. 2018 IEEE Int. Conf. Bioinf. Biomed. (BIBM). pp. 443–448. IEEE (2018)

    2018

  15. [22]

    IEEE Trans

    Liu, M., Wu, S., Chen, R., Lin, Z., Wang, Y., Meijering, E.: Brain image seg- mentation for ultrascale neuron reconstruction via an adaptive dual-task learning network. IEEE Trans. Med. Imag. (2024)

    2024

  16. [23]

    Bioinformatics 38(24), 5329–5339 (2022)

    Liu, Y., Wang, G., Ascoli, G.A., Zhou, J., Liu, L.: Neuron tracing from light mi- croscopy images: Automation, deep learning and bench testing. Bioinformatics 38(24), 5329–5339 (2022)

    2022

  17. [24]

    Ma, C., Xu, Q., Wang, X., Jin, B., Zhang, X., Wang, Y., Zhang, Y.: Boundary- aware supervoxel-level iteratively refined interactive 3d image segmentation with multi-agentreinforcementlearning.IEEETransactionsonMedicalImaging40(10), 2563–2574 (2020)

    2020

  18. [25]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.03600 (2025)

    Ma, J., Yang, Z., Kim, S., Chen, B., Baharoon, M., Fallahpour, A., Asakereh, R., Lyu, H., Wang, B.: Medsam2: Segment anything in 3d medical images and videos. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.03600 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  19. [26]

    In: Proc

    Milletari, F., Navab, N., Ahmadi, S.A.: V-net: Fully convolutional neural networks for volumetric medical image segmentation. In: Proc. 2016 4th Int. Conf. 3D Vis. (3DV). pp. 565–571. IEEE (2016)

    2016

  20. [27]

    Peebles,W.,Xie,S.:Scalablediffusionmodelswithtransformers.In:Proceedingsof the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision. pp. 4195–4205 (2023)

    2023

  21. [28]

    Neuron87(2), 252–256 (2015)

    Peng, H., Hawrylycz, M., Roskams, J., Hill, S., Spruston, N., Meijering, E., Ascoli, G.A.: Bigneuron: Large-scale 3D neuron reconstruction from optical microscopy images. Neuron87(2), 252–256 (2015)

    2015

  22. [29]

    Nature Biotechnol.28(4), 348–353 (2010)

    Peng, H., Ruan, Z., Long, F., Simpson, J.H., Myers, E.W.: V3d enables real-time 3D visualization and quantitative analysis of large-scale biological image data sets. Nature Biotechnol.28(4), 348–353 (2010)

    2010

  23. [30]

    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

  24. [31]

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

    2024

  25. [32]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.11450 (2025) NeuroRefiner 17

    Rokuss, M., Langenberg, M., Kirchhoff, Y., Isensee, F., Hamm, B., Ulrich, C., Regnery, S., Bauer, L., Katsigiannopulos, E., Norajitra, T., et al.: Voxtell: Free-text promptable universal 3d medical image segmentation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.11450 (2025) NeuroRefiner 17

    2025

  26. [33]

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

    Rombach, R., Blattmann, A., Lorenz, D., Esser, P., Ommer, B.: High-resolution image synthesis with latent diffusion models. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. pp. 10684–10695 (2022)

    2022

  27. [34]

    Nature methods20(2), 295–303 (2023)

    Sheridan, A., Nguyen, T.M., Deb, D., Lee, W.C.A., Saalfeld, S., Turaga, S.C., Manor, U., Funke, J.: Local shape descriptors for neuron segmentation. Nature methods20(2), 295–303 (2023)

    2023

  28. [35]

    In: IEEE 18th Int

    Wang, H., Song, Y., Zhang, C., Yu, J., Liu, S., Pengy, H., Cai, W.: Single neuron segmentation using graph-based global reasoning with auxiliary skeleton loss from 3D optical microscope images. In: IEEE 18th Int. Symp. Biomed. Imaging (ISBI). pp. 934–938. IEEE (2021)

    2021

  29. [36]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.12425 (2023)

    Wang, M., Ding, H., Liew, J.H., Liu, J., Zhao, Y., Wei, Y.: Segrefiner: Towards model-agnostic segmentation refinement with discrete diffusion process. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.12425 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  30. [37]

    IEEE Trans

    Wang, X., Liu, M., Wang, Y., Fan, J., Meijering, E.: A 3D tubular flux model for centerline extraction in neuron volumetric images. IEEE Trans. Med. Imag.41(5), 1069–1079 (2021)

    2021

  31. [38]

    IEEE Trans

    Wang,Y.,Lang,R.,Li,R.,Zhang,J.:Nrtr:Neuronreconstructionwithtransformer from 3D optical microscopy images. IEEE Trans. Med. Imag. (2023)

    2023

  32. [39]

    Bioinformatics29(11), 1448–1454 (2013)

    Xiao, H., Peng, H.: App2: Automatic tracing of 3D neuron morphology based on hierarchical pruning of a gray-weighted image distance-tree. Bioinformatics29(11), 1448–1454 (2013)

    2013

  33. [40]

    Xie, J., Zhao, T., Lee, T., Myers, E., Peng, H.: Anisotropic path searching for automatic neuron reconstruction. Med. Image Anal.15(5), 680–689 (2011)

    2011

  34. [41]

    Yan, H., Zhai, H., Guo, J., Li, L., Han, H.: Neurolink: Bridging weak signals in neuronal imaging with morphology learning. In: Int. Conf. Med. Image Comput. Comput.-Assist. Interv. (MICCAI). pp. 467–477. Springer (2024)

    2024

  35. [42]

    IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging (2025)

    Yan, H., Zhang, Y., Li, Z., Guo, J., Zhai, H., Liu, J., Zhong, Y., Yuan, J., Shen, L., Li, L., et al.: Glancing beyond patch: Spatial contextual cues for 3d neuron segmentation. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging (2025)

    2025

  36. [43]

    Yang, B., Chen, W., Luo, H., Tan, Y., Liu, M., Wang, Y.: Neuron image segmen- tation via learning deep features and enhancing weak neuronal structures. IEEE J. Biomed. Health Informat.25(5), 1634–1645 (2020)

    2020

  37. [44]

    IEEE Trans

    Yang, B., Liu, M., Wang, Y., Zhang, K., Meijering, E.: Structure-guided segmenta- tion for 3D neuron reconstruction. IEEE Trans. Med. Imag.41(4), 903–914 (2021)

    2021

  38. [46]

    In: European conference on computer vision

    Yuan, Y., Xie, J., Chen, X., Wang, J.: Segfix: Model-agnostic boundary refine- ment for segmentation. In: European conference on computer vision. pp. 489–506. Springer (2020)

    2020

  39. [47]

    bioRxiv pp

    Zhang, L., Huang, L., Yuan, Z., Hang, Y., Zeng, Y., Li, K., Wang, L., Zeng, H., Chen, X., Zhang, H., et al.: Collaborative augmented reconstruction for scaled production of 3d neuron morphology in mouse and human brains. bioRxiv pp. 2023–10 (2023)

    2023

  40. [48]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision

    Zhang, L., Rao, A., Agrawala, M.: Adding conditional control to text-to-image diffusion models. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision. pp. 3836–3847 (2023)

    2023

  41. [49]

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

    Zhang, Y., Guo, J., Zhai, H., Liu, J., Han, H.: Segneuron: 3d neuron instance seg- mentation in any em volume with a generalist model. In: International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention. pp. 589–600. Springer (2024) 18 H. Yan et al

    2024

  42. [50]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.05176 (2025)

    Zhang, Y., Li, M., Long, D., Zhang, X., Lin, H., Yang, B., Xie, P., Yang, A., Liu, D., Lin, J., et al.: Qwen3 embedding: Advancing text embedding and reranking through foundation models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.05176 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  43. [51]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.03678 (2023)

    Zhang, Y., Jiao, R.: Towards segment anything model (sam) for medical image segmentation: a survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.03678 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  44. [52]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF winter conference on applications of computer vision

    Zhao, R., Wang, H., Zhang, C., Cai, W.: Pointneuron: 3d neuron reconstruction via geometry and topology learning of point clouds. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF winter conference on applications of computer vision. pp. 5787–5797 (2023)

    2023

  45. [53]

    Zhao, T., Gu, Y., Yang, J., Usuyama, N., Lee, H.H., Naumann, T., Gao, J., Crab- tree, A., Abel, J., Moung-Wen, C.: Biomedparse: a biomedical foundation model for image parsing of everything everywhere all at once (2024)

    2024

  46. [54]

    IEEE transactions on image processing32, 4036–4045 (2023)

    Zhou, H.Y., Guo, J., Zhang, Y., Han, X., Yu, L., Wang, L., Yu, Y.: nnformer: Volumetric medical image segmentation via a 3d transformer. IEEE transactions on image processing32, 4036–4045 (2023)

    2023

  47. [55]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.10479 (2025) NeuroRefiner 19 Prompt for Global Inspector You are a Neuron S e g m e n t a t i o n To po log y Quality I n s p e c t i o n Expert

    Zhu, J., Wang, W., Chen, Z., Liu, Z., Ye, S., Gu, L., Tian, H., Duan, Y., Su, W., Shao, J., et al.: Internvl3: Exploring advanced training and test-time recipes for open-source multimodal models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.10479 (2025) NeuroRefiner 19 Prompt for Global Inspecto...

    2025 arXiv

  48. [56]

    ** Global S e g m e n t a t i o n Map **: The overall s e g m e n t a t i o n result marked with Block IDs

  49. [57]

    ** Sub - region Masks **: Binary s e g m e n t a t i o n masks for each Block

  50. [58]

    slender tubular

    ** C o n n e c t e d C o m p o n e n t s Metrics **: The pre - c a l c u l a t e d number of C o n n e c t e d C o m p o n e n t s within each Block . Your goal is to id en ti fy e r r o n e o u s blocks that cause neuron d i s c o n t i n u i t y or contain noise . The final ...

  51. [59]

    ** Metric F i l t e r i n g **: P r i o r i t i z e Blocks with a b n o r m a l l y high CC counts , as this usually i n d i c a t e s br ea ka ge or noise

  52. [60]

    Is it FN or FP ?

    ** M o r p h o l o g i c a l Ana ly si s **: Observe the shapes of c o m p o n e n t s within high - CC blocks . Is it FN or FP ?

  53. [61]

    ** Bo un da ry Check **: Observe whether the s e g m e n t a t i o n at block edges is smooth and continuous , or if there are abrupt t r u n c a t i o n s

  54. [62]

    FN " or

    ** Global C o n s i s t e n c y **: Co ns ide r whether c o r r e c t i n g this block would help improve the c o n n e c t i v i t y of the entire map . # Output Format Only output p r o b l e m a t i c Block IDs . Values are limited to " FN " or " FP ". Format Example : {"1"...

  55. [63]

    ** Image A ( Pre - c o r r e c t i o n ) **: Initial neuron s e g m e n t a t i o n result

  56. [64]

    ** Image B ( Post - c o r r e c t i o n ) **: S e g m e n t a t i o n result after a l g o r i t h m i c p r o c e s s i n g

  57. [65]

    d e n o i s i n g

    ** C o r r e c t i o n Command **: {{ c o r r e c t i o n _ c o m m a n d _ p l a c e h o l d e r }} # E v a l u a t i o n Cr it eri a Compare Image A and Image B s tr ict ly based on the f o l l o w i n g two d i m e n s i o n s . ** The c o r r e c t i o n is a cc ep ted ONL...

  58. [66]

    ** Visual C o m p a r i s o n **: C a r e f u l l y examine d i f f e r e n c e s between Image A and B

  59. [67]

    ** Command V e r i f i c a t i o n **: S e m a n t i c a l l y match o bs erv ed changes against the [ C o r r e c t i o n Command ]

  60. [68]

    ** To po lo gy A s s e s s m e n t **: Judge whether s t r u c t u r a l quality im pro ve d ( cleaner , more c o n t i n u o u s )

  61. [69]

    ** Final Dec is io n **: Apply logic : ‘ Accept = ( T op olo gy Imp ro ve d OR U n c h a n g e d ) AND ( Command C o m p l i a n t ) ‘. ** E v a l u a t i o n C o n c l u s i o n **: - Result : [ ACCEPT / REJECT ] - Reason : [ If REJECTED , specify whether due to t op ol ogy d...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.