Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 77 references

Background Matters: A Cross-view Bidirectional Modeling Framework for Semi-supervised Medical Image Segmentation

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Modeling the background, not merely the foreground, raises segmentation confidence in semi-supervised medical imaging, and the CVBM framework built on this surpasses fully supervised Pancreas training with only 20% of the labels.

desk verdict Strong empirical SSMIS results with a novel background-modeling twist, but the appendix proof of the central theoretical claim is wrong and should be withdrawn or fixed. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.16625 v1 pith:PX2U64KT submitted 2025-05-22 cs.CV

Luyang Cao , Jianwei Li , Yinghuan Shi This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords semi-supervisedlearningmedicalimagesegmentationbackgroundmodelingcomplementarylabelscross-viewbidirectionalconsistencyteacher-studenttrainingpseudo-labeling
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 explicitly modeling the background region, rather than treating it as discarded context, improves foreground segmentation in semi-supervised medical imaging: confident background predictions can raise the confidence of ambiguous foreground predictions, and the paper proves this under a stated consistency constraint. The authors build the Cross-view Bidirectional Modeling (CVBM) framework on that insight, with a foreground decoder and a background decoder sharing one encoder, a mixing layer that fuses the two views, and a bidirectional consistency loss that aligns foreground predictions with background-guided predictions. Empirically the framework reports state-of-the-art results on the LA, Pancreas, ACDC, and HRF benchmarks, and on the Pancreas dataset it reaches 84.57% Dice similarity with only 12 labeled volumes, surpassing the fully supervised VNet's 83.89% with 62 labeled volumes. If the claim is right, a good background model is not a side product of segmentation but an active instrument for reducing uncertainty, which reframes how semi-supervised medical segmentation should be architected.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the cross-view architecture itself: a shared encoder $E$ feeding two decoders, a foreground decoder $D_{\text{fg}}$ and a background decoder $D_{\text{bg}}$, joined by a mixing layer that produces a background-influenced foreground prediction $\hat{Q}_M = \psi(\operatorname{concat}(\hat{Q}_{\text{fg}}, \hat{Q}_{\text{bg}}))$ through a $1{\times}1{\times}1$ convolution. Background labels are 'auxiliary complementary labels' obtained by binary inversion of the ground truth for single-target tasks and by inverting the one-hot encoding in multi-class tasks. The student is trained with the region-wide loss $L_{\text{rw}}$, which supervises both decoders on labeled and unlabeled parts of cut-mixed volumes, and with the bidirectional consistency loss $L_{\text{bcl}} = L_{\text{mse}}(\hat{Q}_M, \hat{Q}_{\text{fg}}) + L_{\text{mse}}((1 - \hat{Q}_{\text{bg}}), \hat{Q}_{\text{fg}})$, whose first term is the direct consistency between the two foreground views and whose second is the inverse consistency between foreground and background. This loss machinery, embedded in a teacher-student loop with an EMA teacher, cut-mix augmentation, and a Gaussian-preheated weight $\lambda$, is what carries the empirical gains; the entropy bounds and gradient condition in the appendix are what carry the theoretical claim.

What would settle it

On a dataset with a highly heterogeneous background, such as whole-abdomen CT where many tissue types surround the target organ, measure the teacher's background-branch confidence at the end of pre-training: if background predictions are not systematically more confident than foreground predictions in boundary regions, the condition $|q - 0.5| > |\mu - 0.5|$ of Theorem 2 fails and CVBM's advantage over a dual-foreground baseline should shrink or reverse. A cheaper causal check is to corrupt the teacher's background pseudo-labels before they enter $L_{\text{rw}}$; if the Dice deficit is negligible, background supervision itself is not the active ingredient.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the background of a medical image is not a nuisance region to be discarded but a complementary view whose confident predictions can rescue uncertain foreground predictions. Formally, the paper establishes two results: Theorem 1 bounds the prediction entropy of a foreground-background decoder pair strictly below that of a dual-foreground decoder pair, so the cross-view architecture is claimed to have lower uncertainty under the same consistency constraints; Theorem 2 shows that when the background prediction $q$ deviates from the median more than the foreground prediction $\mu$ (i.e., $|q - 0.5| > |\mu - 0.5|$) and the task loss and inverse-consistency term push in the same direction, each gradient step moves $\mu$ away from 0.5 and lowers its entropy. The empirical vehicle is the CVBM framework: a teacher pre-trained on labeled volumes emits foreground and background pseudo-labels, and a student trained with a region-wide loss plus a bidirectional consistency loss learns to align the two views. On the Pancreas dataset the student reaches 84.57% DSC with 12 labeled volumes, above the fully supervised VNet's 83.89% with 62 labeled volumes, and similar gains are reported on LA, ACDC, and HRF.

Load-bearing premise

CVBM feeds teacher-generated background pseudo-labels directly into the student's region-wide loss with no confidence filtering or uncertainty weighting, so the method's gains rest on the empirical tendency, demonstrated mainly on the LA dataset, that background predictions are reliably more confident than foreground predictions in the ambiguous regions where it matters.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At only 20% labeled data (12 volumes) on the Pancreas dataset, CVBM reaches 84.57% DSC and beats the fully supervised VNet trained on all 62 volumes (83.89% DSC), so semi-supervised segmentation can outperform dense supervision on some organs.
  • The same background modeling also improves fully supervised training (e.g., 92.02% vs. 91.47% DSC on LA with all labels), so the benefit is not limited to the semi-supervised regime.
  • Inference uses only the foreground branch of the student model, so the accuracy gains come with no added parameters or FLOPs at test time.
  • The mechanism transfers across 3D single-target (LA, Pancreas), 2D multi-class (ACDC), and low-contrast 2D vessel (HRF) tasks, indicating the effect is not bound to one organ, class count, or modality.
  • Ablations attribute the gain to both consistency terms: on LA with 4 labeled volumes, direct consistency alone yields 89.24% DSC and inverse consistency alone 88.97%, while together they reach 89.50%, consistent with the bidirectional claim.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's own proposal for active learning, choosing samples where foreground and background predictions disagree, extends the same mechanism into annotation acquisition; if that disagreement signal is a good uncertainty proxy, CVBM could double as a sample-selection tool.
  • Because background pseudo-labels enter the region-wide loss unfiltered, a confidence-gated variant that down-weights low-confidence background voxels early in training is a natural robustness upgrade; the paper's finding that an over-large unlabeled weight $\alpha$ hurts performance is indirect evidence that noisy pseudo-label supervision is the limiting factor.
  • The theoretical mechanism is not tied to foreground/background semantics: any pair of complementary or inversely related tasks could carry the same bidirectional consistency loss, so applying the framework to, e.g., organ-versus-organ or interior-versus-boundary decompositions is a direct extension the paper does not test.
  • Table VIII shows that averaging the foreground and background outputs, or using the mixing-layer output, beats the foreground-only output, which suggests the background branch carries independent signal worth exploiting at inference time even though the paper deliberately reports only the foreground branch for fair comparison.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes CVBM, a semi-supervised medical image segmentation framework that augments foreground segmentation with an explicit background-modeling branch. The method uses a teacher-student setup, with the teacher generating foreground and background pseudo-labels, and a student trained with a region-wide loss and a bidirectional consistency loss that aligns foreground predictions with background-guided predictions. The authors claim a theoretical result (Theorem 1, Appendix B) that background-assisted modeling yields strictly lower prediction uncertainty than dual-foreground modeling, and support this with experiments on LA, Pancreas, ACDC, and HRF datasets, reporting state-of-the-art results, including surpassing fully supervised training on the Pancreas dataset with 20% of the labels.

Significance. The empirical contribution is strong: CVBM consistently outperforms prior SOTA methods on four public benchmarks, includes careful ablations of each component, reports inference cost parity, and releases code. These results suggest the method is practically valuable. However, the paper's framing as a 'theoretical and empirical' demonstration hinges on Theorem 1 in Appendix B, and that theorem is not established by the given proof; the mathematical errors in Lemma 1 and Lemma 2 are substantial. If the theoretical claim is removed or corrected, the empirical work may stand on its own, but the current manuscript overstates its theoretical support.

major comments (3)
  1. [Appendix B, Lemma 1 (Eq. 21)] The claimed lower bound on HA(p) is invalid. For µ=0.5 and Dfg2 = 0.5 + δ with δ=√ϵ1, the exact entropy is HA = H(0.5)+H(0.5+δ) = 2 ln 2 − 2δ² + O(δ⁴), whereas the claimed lower bound is 2 ln 2 − δ log δ. Since δ log δ < 0, the claimed bound is strictly larger than the actual entropy, so it cannot be a lower bound. The Taylor expansion discards first-order terms without controlling their sign while retaining a term with the opposite sign. This invalidates Lemma 1.
  2. [Appendix B, Lemma 2 (Eq. 24)] The claimed upper bound on HB(p) is also invalid. For µ=0.5 and Dbg = 1−µ+δ = 0.5+δ, the exact entropy is HB = H(0.5)+H(0.5+δ) ≈ 2 ln 2 − 2δ², while the claimed upper bound is 2 ln 2 + δ log δ. Because δ log δ < 0, the claimed upper bound lies below the true entropy for sufficiently small δ, which contradicts the definition of an upper bound. Lemma 2 is therefore false as stated.
  3. [Appendix B, Theorem 1 (Eqs. 27–28)] Even if the lemmas were correct, the argument that √ϵ2 log√ϵ2 + √ϵ1 log√ϵ1 is 'bounded away from zero by a negative constant' is false: this sum tends to 0 as ϵ1,ϵ2→0. Hence no constant C>0 can satisfy HB(p) ≤ HA(p) − C for all sufficiently small ϵ. Consequently, the theorem's claim of a strictly lower uncertainty gap for background-assisted modeling is unsupported. Since this theorem is invoked in Section III-D4 and in Contribution 1 to justify the paper's central premise ('highly certain predictions in background modeling enhance the confidence of corresponding foreground modeling'), the theoretical foundation of the manuscript needs to be substantially revised or removed.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section III-D1, Eq. (17)] The region-wide loss feeds teacher-generated background pseudo-labels into the student loss without confidence filtering or uncertainty weighting. Given that the paper's motivation rests on the empirical observation that background predictions are more confident, a discussion or ablation addressing the robustness of this choice under noisy pseudo-labels would strengthen the presentation.
  2. [Section V] The conclusion contains a grammatical error: 'we breaks the trend' should be 'we break the trend'.
  3. [Section IV-C3] The sentence 'these findings demonstrated that CVBM is applicable to utilized to 2D multi-class segmentation' contains a duplicated phrase; it should read 'applicable to 2D multi-class segmentation'.
  4. [Appendix B, proofs of Lemma 1 and Lemma 2] The phrase 'which larger in magnitude' is grammatically incomplete; it should be 'which is larger in magnitude'.
  5. [Table X] The symbol table describes the framework as 'contrastive volumetric background modeling', but the method is named 'Cross-view Bidirectional Modeling'. This inconsistency is confusing and should be corrected.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the empirical evaluation is benchmark-based and no prediction reduces to a fitted input, though the theoretical appendix contains an invalid bound that is a correctness issue, not circularity.

full rationale

The paper's load-bearing empirical claims are evaluated on external benchmarks (LA, Pancreas, ACDC, HRF) against published SOTA methods, and no parameter is fitted to test data. The background labels are a deterministic inversion of the foreground ground truth (Eq. 1), which is a label transformation, not a circular prediction. The student training uses teacher-generated pseudo-labels, but the reported gains are measured on held-out test sets, so the improvement is not an artifact of fitting the evaluation target. The bidirectional consistency loss (Eq. 18) is designed to align foreground predictions with the complement of background predictions, and Theorem 2 in Appendix B analyzes the gradient of that loss; this is a post-hoc property of the proposed objective rather than an independent first-principles derivation, but it does not make the benchmark results circular. The appendix's Theorem 1, however, is not mathematically sound: Lemma 1's claimed lower bound is false (e.g., at mu=0.5 the claimed bound exceeds the exact entropy), and the gap in Eq. (28) tends to zero, so no positive constant C exists. This is a correctness risk in the theoretical contribution, not a circularity of the empirical derivation. Overall, the central results are self-contained against external benchmarks and do not reduce by construction to their inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method depends on one tuned hyperparameter (α) and several assumptions from the theoretical analysis. No new physical entities or postulates are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • α = 0.5
    Weights the unlabeled loss in Eq. (17); tuned on the LA dataset (Fig. 16) and fixed across all other experiments.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The consistency constraint between foreground decoders is exactly satisfied (||D_fg1 - D_fg2||_2 ≤ ϵ1) in Theorem 1.
    In practice, the consistency is enforced as a soft loss, not a hard constraint, so the bound in Lemma 1 may not hold.
  • domain assumption The shared encoder produces similar latent representations for both architectures (D_fg1(h) ≈ D_fg(h)).
    Unproven and used to compare entropies across architectures in Theorem 1.
  • standard math Taylor expansion terms are negligible for small ϵ.
    The proof drops terms under the assumption of small ϵ, but the resulting bounds are not valid for typical values, leading to trivial or impossible inequalities.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Background Matters: A Cross-view Bidirectional Modeling Framework for Semi-supervised Medical Image Segmentation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PX2U64KT

@misc{pith2026250516625,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Background Matters: A Cross-view Bidirectional Modeling Framework for Semi-supervised Medical Image Segmentation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PX2U64KT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.16625}
}
read the original abstract

Semi-supervised medical image segmentation (SSMIS) leverages unlabeled data to reduce reliance on manually annotated images. However, current SOTA approaches predominantly focus on foreground-oriented modeling (i.e., segmenting only the foreground region) and have largely overlooked the potential benefits of explicitly modeling the background region. Our study theoretically and empirically demonstrates that highly certain predictions in background modeling enhance the confidence of corresponding foreground modeling. Building on this insight, we propose the Cross-view Bidirectional Modeling (CVBM) framework, which introduces a novel perspective by incorporating background modeling to improve foreground modeling performance. Within CVBM, background modeling serves as an auxiliary perspective, providing complementary supervisory signals to enhance the confidence of the foreground model. Additionally, CVBM introduces an innovative bidirectional consistency mechanism, which ensures mutual alignment between foreground predictions and background-guided predictions. Extensive experiments demonstrate that our approach achieves SOTA performance on the LA, Pancreas, ACDC, and HRF datasets. Notably, on the Pancreas dataset, CVBM outperforms fully supervised methods (i.e., DSC: 84.57% vs. 83.89%) while utilizing only 20% of the labeled data. Our code is publicly available at https://github.com/caoluyang0830/CVBM.git.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.16625 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The motivation of proposed approach. In some cases, background [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Overview of our proposed method. Model in gray represent stop [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Background label settings. The inversion operation transforms binary [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (13 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Pre-training process of teacher model. For the training process of our teacher network, only labeled data are utilized for pre-training. The network [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Cut-mix process of labeled data. The enhanced images exchange [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Foreground pseudo-labels of the LA dataset during early training [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Framework of the Cross-view Bidirectional Modeling (CVBM) scheme. The teacher network is pre-trained using labeled data and generates pseudo ˆˆ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: t-SNE visualization of the ACDC dataset with 10% labeled data at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: 3D visualization results of LA dataset with 8/72 labeled data. CVBM reduces the occurrence of discretization errors, producing smoother and more [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: 3D visualization results of Pancreas dataset with 12/50 labeled data. CVBM mitigates both over-segmentation and under-segmentation, and the 3D [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Visualization results of ACDC dataset with 3/67 labeled data. CVBM reduces boundary overflow, region overlap, and structural ambiguity, leading [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Visualization results of HRF dataset with 1 labeled data. GT means Ground Truth. Best viewed by zoom-in on screen. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Confidence maps comparison between traditional foreground-oriented modeling (DFM) and our CVBM. GT indicates Ground Truth. Solid yellow [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: The impact of high-confidence backgrounds on foreground segmen [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Label Ratio Impact on Model Performance. Experiments conducted [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Variations of four evaluation metrics at different values of parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_16.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

77 extracted references · 70 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    V-Net: Fully convolutional neural networks for volumetric medical image segmentation,

    F. Milletari, N. Navab, and S.-A. Ahmadi, “V-Net: Fully convolutional neural networks for volumetric medical image segmentation,” in 3DV, pp. 565–571, 2016

    work page 2016

  2. [2]

    Grouping boundary proposals for fast interactive image segmentation,

    L. Liu, D. Chen, M. Shu, and L. D. Cohen, “Grouping boundary proposals for fast interactive image segmentation,” IEEE Trans. Image Process., vol. 33, pp. 793–808, 2024

    work page 2024

  3. [4]

    Towards robust referring image segmentation,

    J. Wu, X. Li, X. Li, H. Ding, Y . Tong, and D. Tao, “Towards robust referring image segmentation,” IEEE Trans. Image Process. , 2024

    2024

  4. [5]

    Bilateral context modeling for residual coding in lossless 3d medical image compression,

    X. Liu, M. Wang, S. Wang, and S. Kwong, “Bilateral context modeling for residual coding in lossless 3d medical image compression,” IEEE Trans. Image Process., 2024

    work page 2024

  5. [6]

    Mm-net: A mixformer-based multi-scale network for anatomical and functional image fusion,

    Y . Liu, C. Yu, J. Cheng, Z. J. Wang, and X. Chen, “Mm-net: A mixformer-based multi-scale network for anatomical and functional image fusion,” IEEE Trans. Image Process. , vol. 33, pp. 2197–2212, 2024

    work page 2024

  6. [7]

    Anomaly detection for medical images using heterogeneous auto-encoder,

    S. Lu, W. Zhang, H. Zhao, H. Liu, N. Wang, and H. Li, “Anomaly detection for medical images using heterogeneous auto-encoder,” IEEE Trans. Image Process., 2024

    work page 2024

  7. [8]

    Mas-cl: An end- to-end multi-atlas supervised contrastive learning framework for brain roi segmentation,

    L. Sun, Y . Fu, J. Zhao, W. Shao, Q. Zhu, and D. Zhang, “Mas-cl: An end- to-end multi-atlas supervised contrastive learning framework for brain roi segmentation,” IEEE Trans. Image Process. , 2024

    work page 2024

  8. [9]

    Balancing multi- target semi-supervised medical image segmentation with collaborative generalist and specialists,

    Y . Wang, Z. Li, L. Qi, Q. Yu, Y . Shi, and Y . Gao, “Balancing multi- target semi-supervised medical image segmentation with collaborative generalist and specialists,” IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging , pp. 1–1, 2025

    work page 2025

Show all 77 references
  1. [10]

    Weakmedsam: Weakly-supervised medical image segmentation via sam with sub-class exploration and prompt affinity mining,

    H. Wang, L. Huai, W. Li, L. Qi, X. Jiang, and Y . Shi, “Weakmedsam: Weakly-supervised medical image segmentation via sam with sub-class exploration and prompt affinity mining,” IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, pp. 1–1, 2025

    2025

  2. [11]

    Stitching, fine-tuning, re-training: A sam-enabled framework for semi-supervised 3d medical image segmentation,

    S. Li, L. Qi, Q. Yu, J. Huo, Y . Shi, and Y . Gao, “Stitching, fine-tuning, re-training: A sam-enabled framework for semi-supervised 3d medical image segmentation,” IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging , pp. 1–1, 2025

    2025

  3. [12]

    Constructing and exploring intermediate domains in mixed domain semi-supervised med- ical image segmentation,

    Q. Ma, J. Zhang, L. Qi, Q. Yu, Y . Shi, and Y . Gao, “Constructing and exploring intermediate domains in mixed domain semi-supervised med- ical image segmentation,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), pp. 11642–11651, June 2024

    2024

  4. [13]

    Semirs-coc: Semi- supervised classification for complex remote sensing scenes with cross- object consistency,

    Q. Liu, J. Yue, Y . Kuang, W. Xie, and L. Fang, “Semirs-coc: Semi- supervised classification for complex remote sensing scenes with cross- object consistency,” IEEE Trans. Image Process. , 2024

    2024

  5. [14]

    Hybrid perturba- tion strategy for semi-supervised crowd counting,

    X. Wang, Y . Zhan, Y . Zhao, T. Yang, and Q. Ruan, “Hybrid perturba- tion strategy for semi-supervised crowd counting,” IEEE Trans. Image Process., 2024

    2024

  6. [15]

    Semi-supervised learning with heterogeneous distribution consistency for visible infrared person re-identification,

    Z. Wei, X. Yang, N. Wang, and X. Gao, “Semi-supervised learning with heterogeneous distribution consistency for visible infrared person re-identification,” IEEE Trans. Image Process. , 2024. 15

    2024

  7. [16]

    ACPL: Anti-curriculum pseudo-labelling for semi-supervised medical image classification,

    F. Liu, Y . Tian, Y . Chen, Y . Liu, V . Belagiannis, and G. Carneiro, “ACPL: Anti-curriculum pseudo-labelling for semi-supervised medical image classification,” in CVPR, pp. 20665–20674, 2022

    2022

  8. [17]

    Multi- modal contrastive mutual learning and pseudo-label re-learning for semi- supervised medical image segmentation,

    S. Zhang, J. Zhang, B. Tian, T. Lukasiewicz, and Z. Xu, “Multi- modal contrastive mutual learning and pseudo-label re-learning for semi- supervised medical image segmentation,” Med. Image Anal. , vol. 83, p. 102656, 2023

    2023

  9. [18]

    Semi-supervised medical image segmentation via a tripled-uncertainty guided mean teacher model with contrastive learning,

    K. Wang, B. Zhan, C. Zu, X. Wu, J. Zhou, L. Zhou, and Y . Wang, “Semi-supervised medical image segmentation via a tripled-uncertainty guided mean teacher model with contrastive learning,” Med. Image Anal., vol. 79, p. 102447, 2022

    2022

  10. [19]

    Mutual consistency learning for semi-supervised medical image segmentation,

    Y . Wu, Z. Ge, D. Zhang, M. Xu, L. Zhang, Y . Xia, and J. Cai, “Mutual consistency learning for semi-supervised medical image segmentation,” Med. Image Anal. , vol. 81, p. 102530, 2022

    2022

  11. [20]

    Perturbed and Strict Mean Teachers for Semi-supervised Semantic Segmentation,

    Y . Liu, Y . Tian, Y . Chen, F. Liu, V . Belagiannis, and G. Carneiro, “Perturbed and Strict Mean Teachers for Semi-supervised Semantic Segmentation,” in CVPR, pp. 4248–4257, 2022

    2022

  12. [21]

    Magicnet: Semi-supervised multi-organ segmentation via magic-cube partition and recovery,

    D. Chen, Y . Bai, W. Shen, Q. Li, L. Yu, and Y . Wang, “Magicnet: Semi-supervised multi-organ segmentation via magic-cube partition and recovery,” in CVPR, pp. 23869–23878, 2023

    2023

  13. [22]

    Cross-patch dense contrastive learning for semi-supervised segmentation of cellular nuclei in histopathologic images,

    H. Wu, Z. Wang, Y . Song, L. Yang, and J. Qin, “Cross-patch dense contrastive learning for semi-supervised segmentation of cellular nuclei in histopathologic images,” in CVPR, pp. 11656–11665, 2022

    2022

  14. [23]

    Self-paced con- trastive learning for semi-supervised medical image segmentation with meta-labels,

    J. Peng, P. Wang, C. Desrosiers, and M. Pedersoli, “Self-paced con- trastive learning for semi-supervised medical image segmentation with meta-labels,” in NeurIPS, vol. 34, pp. 16686–16699, Curran Associates, Inc., 2021

    2021

  15. [24]

    SSMD: Semi-supervised medical image detection with adaptive con- sistency and heterogeneous perturbation,

    H.-Y . Zhou, C. Wang, H. Li, G. Wang, S. Zhang, W. Li, and Y . Yu, “SSMD: Semi-supervised medical image detection with adaptive con- sistency and heterogeneous perturbation,” Med. Image Anal. , vol. 72, p. 102117, 2021

    2021

  16. [25]

    Meta pseudo labels,

    H. Pham, Z. Dai, Q. Xie, and Q. V . Le, “Meta pseudo labels,” in CVPR, pp. 11557–11568, 2021

    2021

  17. [26]

    SECRET: Self-consistent pseudo label refinement for unsupervised domain adaptive person re- identification,

    T. He, L. Shen, Y . Guo, G. Ding, and Z. Guo, “SECRET: Self-consistent pseudo label refinement for unsupervised domain adaptive person re- identification,” in AAAI, vol. 36, pp. 879–887, 2022

    2022

  18. [27]

    Pro- tocon: Pseudo-label refinement via online clustering and prototypical consistency for efficient semi-supervised learning,

    I. Nassar, M. Hayat, E. Abbasnejad, H. Rezatofighi, and G. Haffari, “Pro- tocon: Pseudo-label refinement via online clustering and prototypical consistency for efficient semi-supervised learning,” inCVPR, pp. 11641– 11650, 2023

    2023

  19. [28]

    Semi-supervised image de- raining using gaussian processes,

    R. Yasarla, V . A. Sindagi, and V . M. Patel, “Semi-supervised image de- raining using gaussian processes,” IEEE Trans. Image Process., vol. 30, pp. 6570–6582, 2021

    2021

  20. [29]

    Cmos-gan: Semi-supervised generative adversarial model for cross-modality face image synthesis,

    S. Yu, H. Han, S. Shan, and X. Chen, “Cmos-gan: Semi-supervised generative adversarial model for cross-modality face image synthesis,” IEEE Trans. Image Process. , vol. 32, pp. 144–158, 2023

    2023

  21. [30]

    In defense of pseudo-labeling: An uncertainty-aware pseudo-label selection frame- work for semi-supervised learning,

    M. N. Rizve, K. Duarte, Y . S. Rawat, and M. Shah, “In defense of pseudo-labeling: An uncertainty-aware pseudo-label selection frame- work for semi-supervised learning,” arXiv:2101.06329, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  22. [31]

    MixMatch: A holistic approach to semi-supervised learning,

    D. Berthelot, N. Carlini, I. Goodfellow, N. Papernot, A. Oliver, and C. A. Raffel, “MixMatch: A holistic approach to semi-supervised learning,” in NeurIPS, vol. 32, Curran Associates, Inc., 2019

    2019

  23. [32]

    Adversarial dense contrastive learning for semi-supervised semantic segmentation,

    Y . Wang, Z. Xuan, C. Ho, and G.-J. Qi, “Adversarial dense contrastive learning for semi-supervised semantic segmentation,”IEEE Trans. Image Process., vol. 32, pp. 4459–4471, 2023

    2023

  24. [33]

    Otamatch: Optimal transport assignment with pseudonce for semi-supervised learn- ing,

    J. Zhang, J. Liu, D. Li, Q. Huang, J. Chen, and D. Huang, “Otamatch: Optimal transport assignment with pseudonce for semi-supervised learn- ing,” IEEE Trans. Image Process. , vol. 33, pp. 4231–4244, 2024

    2024

  25. [34]

    Distilling self-supervised vision transformers for weakly-supervised few-shot classification & segmentation,

    D. Kang, P. Koniusz, M. Cho, and N. Murray, “Distilling self-supervised vision transformers for weakly-supervised few-shot classification & segmentation,” in CVPR, pp. 19627–19638, 2023

    2023

  26. [35]

    Learning self-supervised low-rank network for single-stage weakly and semi-supervised semantic segmentation,

    J. Pan, P. Zhu, K. Zhang, B. Cao, Y . Wang, D. Zhang, J. Han, and Q. Hu, “Learning self-supervised low-rank network for single-stage weakly and semi-supervised semantic segmentation,” IJCV ., vol. 130, no. 5, pp. 1181–1195, 2022

    2022

  27. [36]

    A multi- task mean teacher for semi-supervised shadow detection,

    Z. Chen, L. Zhu, L. Wan, S. Wang, W. Feng, and P.-A. Heng, “A multi- task mean teacher for semi-supervised shadow detection,” in CVPR, pp. 5610–5619, 2020

    2020

  28. [37]

    Semi- supervised learning of semantic correspondence with pseudo-labels,

    J. Kim, K. Ryoo, J. Seo, G. Lee, D. Kim, H. Cho, and S. Kim, “Semi- supervised learning of semantic correspondence with pseudo-labels,” in CVPR, pp. 19699–19709, 2022

    2022

  29. [38]

    Learning privacy-preserving student networks via discriminative-generative distillation,

    S. Ge, B. Liu, P. Wang, Y . Li, and D. Zeng, “Learning privacy-preserving student networks via discriminative-generative distillation,” IEEE Trans. Image Process., vol. 32, pp. 116–127, 2023

    2023

  30. [39]

    Semi-supervised semantic segmentation with high and low-level consistency,

    S. Mittal, M. Tatarchenko, and T. Brox, “Semi-supervised semantic segmentation with high and low-level consistency,” IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. , vol. 43, no. 4, pp. 1369–1379, 2021

    2021

  31. [40]

    Learning from pixel-level label noise: A new perspective for semi-supervised semantic segmentation,

    R. Yi, Y . Huang, Q. Guan, M. Pu, and R. Zhang, “Learning from pixel-level label noise: A new perspective for semi-supervised semantic segmentation,” IEEE Trans. Image Process., vol. 31, pp. 623–635, 2022

    2022

  32. [41]

    Sample- centric feature generation for semi-supervised few-shot learning,

    B. Zhang, H. Ye, G. Yu, B. Wang, Y . Wu, J. Fan, and T. Chen, “Sample- centric feature generation for semi-supervised few-shot learning,” IEEE Trans. Image Process., vol. 31, pp. 2309–2320, 2022

    2022

  33. [42]

    Conflict- based cross-view consistency for semi-supervised semantic segmenta- tion,

    Z. Wang, Z. Zhao, X. Xing, D. Xu, X. Kong, and L. Zhou, “Conflict- based cross-view consistency for semi-supervised semantic segmenta- tion,” in CVPR, pp. 19585–19595, 2023

    2023

  34. [43]

    Ssl++: Im- proving self-supervised learning by mitigating the proxy task-specificity problem,

    S. Chen, J.-H. Xue, J. Chang, J. Zhang, J. Yang, and Q. Tian, “Ssl++: Im- proving self-supervised learning by mitigating the proxy task-specificity problem,” IEEE Trans. Image Process. , vol. 31, pp. 1134–1148, 2022

    2022

  35. [44]

    Semi-supervised med- ical image classification with relation-driven self-ensembling model,

    Q. Liu, L. Yu, L. Luo, Q. Dou, and P. A. Heng, “Semi-supervised med- ical image classification with relation-driven self-ensembling model,” IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging , vol. 39, no. 11, pp. 3429–3440, 2020

    2020

  36. [45]

    Semi-supervised neuron segmentation via reinforced consistency learning,

    W. Huang, C. Chen, Z. Xiong, Y . Zhang, X. Chen, X. Sun, and F. Wu, “Semi-supervised neuron segmentation via reinforced consistency learning,” IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging , vol. 41, no. 11, pp. 3016–3028, 2022

    2022

  37. [46]

    Generative consistency for semi-supervised cerebrovascular segmentation from TOF-MRA,

    C. Chen, K. Zhou, Z. Wang, and R. Xiao, “Generative consistency for semi-supervised cerebrovascular segmentation from TOF-MRA,” IEEE Trans. Med. Imaging, vol. 42, no. 2, pp. 346–353, 2022

    2022

  38. [47]

    Efficient semi-supervised gross target vol- ume of nasopharyngeal carcinoma segmentationvia uncertainty rectified pyramid consistency,

    X. Luo, W. Liao, J. Chen, T. Song, Y . Chen, S. Zhang, N. Chen, G. Wang, and S. Zhang, “Efficient semi-supervised gross target vol- ume of nasopharyngeal carcinoma segmentationvia uncertainty rectified pyramid consistency,” in MICCAI, pp. 318–329, Springer, 2021

    2021

  39. [48]

    Dual-consistency semi- supervised learning with uncertainty quantification for covid-19 lesion segmentation from CT Images,

    Y . Li, L. Luo, H. Lin, H. Chen, and P.-A. Heng, “Dual-consistency semi- supervised learning with uncertainty quantification for covid-19 lesion segmentation from CT Images,” in MICCAI, pp. 199–209, Springer, 2021

    2021

  40. [49]

    Semi-supervised task-driven data augmentation for medical image segmentation,

    K. Chaitanya, N. Karani, C. F. Baumgartner, E. Erdil, A. Becker, O. Do- nati, and E. Konukoglu, “Semi-supervised task-driven data augmentation for medical image segmentation,” Med. Image Anal., vol. 68, p. 101934, 2021

    2021

  41. [50]

    Semi-supervised medical image segmentation with voxel stability and reliability constraints,

    Y . Zhao, K. Lu, J. Xue, S. Wang, and J. Lu, “Semi-supervised medical image segmentation with voxel stability and reliability constraints,” IEEE J. Biomed. Health. , pp. 1–12, 2023

    2023

  42. [51]

    Boostmis: Boosting medical image semi-supervised learning with adaptive pseudo labeling and informative active annotation,

    W. Zhang, L. Zhu, J. Hallinan, S. Zhang, A. Makmur, Q. Cai, and B. C. Ooi, “Boostmis: Boosting medical image semi-supervised learning with adaptive pseudo labeling and informative active annotation,” in CVPR, pp. 20666–20676, 2022

    2022

  43. [52]

    Semi-supervised medical image segmentation through dual-task consistency,

    X. Luo, J. Chen, T. Song, and G. Wang, “Semi-supervised medical image segmentation through dual-task consistency,” inAAAI, vol. 35, pp. 8801– 8809, 2021

    2021

  44. [53]

    A multi-view co-training network for semi-supervised medical image-based prognostic prediction,

    H. Li, S. Wang, B. Liu, M. Fang, R. Cao, B. He, S. Liu, C. Hu, D. Dong, X. Wang, H. Wang, and J. Tian, “A multi-view co-training network for semi-supervised medical image-based prognostic prediction,” Neural Networks, vol. 164, pp. 455–463, 2023

    2023

  45. [54]

    Transformation-consistent self-ensembling model for semisupervised medical image segmentation,

    X. Li, L. Yu, H. Chen, C.-W. Fu, L. Xing, and P.-A. Heng, “Transformation-consistent self-ensembling model for semisupervised medical image segmentation,” IEEE Trans. Neural Networks Learn. Syst., vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 523–534, 2021

    2021

  46. [55]

    Uncertainty- guided dual-views for semi-supervised volumetric medical image seg- mentation,

    H. Peiris, M. Hayat, Z. Chen, G. Egan, and M. Harandi, “Uncertainty- guided dual-views for semi-supervised volumetric medical image seg- mentation,” Nat. Mach. Intell. , vol. 5, no. 7, pp. 724–738, 2023

    2023

  47. [56]

    MutexMatch: Semi-supervised learning with mutex-based consistency regularization,

    Y . Duan, Z. Zhao, L. Qi, L. Wang, L. Zhou, Y . Shi, and Y . Gao, “MutexMatch: Semi-supervised learning with mutex-based consistency regularization,” IEEE Trans. Neural Networks Learn. Syst. , pp. 1–15, 2022

    2022

  48. [57]

    Semi-supervised semantic segmentation using unreliable pseudo-labels,

    Y . Wang, H. Wang, Y . Shen, J. Fei, W. Li, G. Jin, L. Wu, R. Zhao, and X. Le, “Semi-supervised semantic segmentation using unreliable pseudo-labels,” in CVPR, pp. 4238–4247, 2022

    2022

  49. [58]

    Fine-grained background representation for weakly supervised semantic segmenta- tion,

    X. Yin, W. Im, D. Min, Y . Huo, F. Pan, and S.-E. Yoon, “Fine-grained background representation for weakly supervised semantic segmenta- tion,” IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, vol. 34, pp. 11739–11750, Nov. 2024

    2024

  50. [59]

    Background activation suppression for weakly supervised object localization and semantic segmentation,

    W. Zhai, P. Wu, K. Zhu, Y . Cao, F. Wu, and Z.-J. Zha, “Background activation suppression for weakly supervised object localization and semantic segmentation,” International Journal of Computer Vision , vol. 132, pp. 750–775, Mar. 2024

    2024

  51. [60]

    Spatial structure constraints for weakly supervised semantic segmentation,

    T. Chen, Y . Yao, X. Huang, Z. Li, L. Nie, and J. Tang, “Spatial structure constraints for weakly supervised semantic segmentation,” IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, vol. 33, pp. 1136–1148, 2024

    2024

  52. [61]

    Weakly supervised semantic segmentation by pixel-to-prototype contrast,

    Y . Du, Z. Fu, Q. Liu, and Y . Wang, “Weakly supervised semantic segmentation by pixel-to-prototype contrast,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition , pp. 4320–4329, 2022. 16

    2022

  53. [62]

    C 2 am: Contrastive learning of class-agnostic activation map for weakly super- vised object localization and semantic segmentation,

    J. Xie, J. Xiang, J. Chen, X. Hou, X. Zhao, and L. Shen, “C 2 am: Contrastive learning of class-agnostic activation map for weakly super- vised object localization and semantic segmentation,” in2022 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), (New Or...

    2022

  54. [63]

    Foundation model assisted weakly supervised semantic segmentation,

    X. Yang and X. Gong, “Foundation model assisted weakly supervised semantic segmentation,” in2024 IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Appli- cations of Computer Vision (WACV), (Waikoloa, HI, USA), pp. 512–521, IEEE, Jan. 2024

    2024

  55. [64]

    Bidirectional copy-paste for semi-supervised medical image segmentation,

    Y . Bai, D. Chen, Q. Li, W. Shen, and Y . Wang, “Bidirectional copy-paste for semi-supervised medical image segmentation,” in CVPR, pp. 11514– 11524, 2023

    2023

  56. [65]

    A global benchmark of algorithms for segmenting the left atrium from late gadolinium- enhanced cardiac magnetic resonance imaging,

    Z. Xiong, Q. Xia, Z. Hu, N. Huang, C. Bian, Y . Zheng, S. Vesal, N. Ravikumar, A. Maier, X. Yang, and P.-A. Heng, “A global benchmark of algorithms for segmenting the left atrium from late gadolinium- enhanced cardiac magnetic resonance imaging,” Med. Image Anal. , vol. 67, p....

    2021

  57. [66]

    MCF: Mutual correction framework for semi-supervised medical image segmentation,

    Y . Wang, B. Xiao, X. Bi, W. Li, and X. Gao, “MCF: Mutual correction framework for semi-supervised medical image segmentation,” in CVPR, pp. 15651–15660, 2023

    2023

  58. [67]

    The cancer imaging archive (TCIA): Maintaining and operating a public information repository,

    K. Clark, B. Vendt, K. Smith, J. Freymann, J. Kirby, P. Koppel, S. Moore, S. Phillips, D. Maffitt, M. Pringle, L. Tarbox, and F. Prior, “The cancer imaging archive (TCIA): Maintaining and operating a public information repository,” J. Digit. Imaging. , vol. 26, no. 6, pp. 1045...

    2013

  59. [68]

    Deep learning techniques for automatic mri cardiac multi- structures segmentation and diagnosis: Is the problem solved?,

    O. Bernard, A. Lalande, C. Zotti, F. Cervenansky, X. Yang, P.-A. Heng, I. Cetin, K. Lekadir, O. Camara, M. A. Gonzalez Ballester, G. Sanroma, and S. Napel, “Deep learning techniques for automatic mri cardiac multi- structures segmentation and diagnosis: Is the problem solved?,...

    2018

  60. [69]

    Exploring smoothness and class-separation for semi-supervised medical image segmentation,

    Y . Wu, Z. Wu, Q. Wu, Z. Ge, and J. Cai, “Exploring smoothness and class-separation for semi-supervised medical image segmentation,” in MICCAI, pp. 34–43, Springer, 2022

    2022

  61. [70]

    Retinal vessel segmentation by improved matched filtering: Evaluation on a new high-resolution fundus image database,

    J. Odstrcilik, R. Kolar, A. Budai, J. Hornegger, J. Jan, J. Gazarek, T. Kubena, P. Cernosek, O. Svoboda, and E. Angelopoulou, “Retinal vessel segmentation by improved matched filtering: Evaluation on a new high-resolution fundus image database,” IEEE Trans. Image Process. , vo...

    2013

  62. [71]

    Uncertainty-aware self-ensembling model for semi-supervised 3d left atrium segmentation,

    L. Yu, S. Wang, X. Li, C.-W. Fu, and P.-A. Heng, “Uncertainty-aware self-ensembling model for semi-supervised 3d left atrium segmentation,” in MICCAI, pp. 605–613, Springer, 2019

    2019

  63. [72]

    Shape-aware semi-supervised 3d semantic segmentation for medical images,

    S. Li, C. Zhang, and X. He, “Shape-aware semi-supervised 3d semantic segmentation for medical images,” in MICCAI, pp. 552–561, Springer, 2020

    2020

  64. [73]

    Semi-supervised left atrium segmentation with mutual consistency training,

    Y . Wu, M. Xu, Z. Ge, J. Cai, and L. Zhang, “Semi-supervised left atrium segmentation with mutual consistency training,” in MICCAI, pp. 297– 306, Springer, 2021

    2021

  65. [74]

    Segment anything,

    A. Kirillov, E. Mintun, N. Ravi, H. Mao, C. Rolland, L. Gustafson, T. Xiao, S. Whitehead, A. C. Berg, W.-Y . Lo, P. Dollar, and R. Girshick, “Segment anything,” in ICCV, pp. 4015–4026, October 2023

    2023

  66. [75]

    Sam-med3d,

    H. Wang, S. Guo, J. Ye, Z. Deng, J. Cheng, T. Li, J. Chen, Y . Su, Z. Huang, Y . Shen, B. Fu, S. Zhang, J. He, and Y . Qiao, “Sam-med3d,” arXiv:2310.15161, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  67. [76]

    Temporal ensembling for semi-supervised learn- ing,

    S. Laine and T. Aila, “Temporal ensembling for semi-supervised learn- ing,” arXiv:1610.02242, 2017

    2017 arXiv

  68. [77]

    CauSSL: Causality- inspired semi-supervised learning for medical image segmentation,

    J. Miao, C. Chen, F. Liu, H. Wei, and P.-A. Heng, “CauSSL: Causality- inspired semi-supervised learning for medical image segmentation,” in ICCV, pp. 21369–21380, 2023

    2023

  69. [78]

    Sam- med2d,

    J. Cheng, J. Ye, Z. Deng, J. Chen, T. Li, H. Wang, Y . Su, Z. Huang, J. Chen, L. Jiang, H. Sun, J. He, S. Zhang, M. Zhu, and Y . Qiao, “Sam- med2d,” arXiv:2308.16184, Aug. 2023. 17 TABLE X SUMMARY OF SYMBOLS AND DEFINITIONS Symbol Definition Symbol Definition Symbol Definition...

    2023 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.