Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 4 minor 69 references

Mutual Evidential Deep Learning for Medical Image Segmentation

T0 review · 5 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Mutual evidential deep learning fuses two heterogeneous networks' evidence into pseudo-labels and uses uncertainty-ranked training to segment medical images from very few labeled volumes.

desk verdict A re-packaged BIBM 2024 paper whose central fusion equation is mathematically incomplete, so the headline 5%-beats-20% claim is not yet supported. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.12418 v1 pith:INTXB5G3 submitted 2025-05-18 eess.IV cs.AIcs.CV

Yuanpeng He , Yali Bi , Lijian Li , Chi-Man Pun , Wenpin Jiao , Zhi Jin This is my paper · ORCID
classification eess.IVcs.AIcs.CV
keywords semi-supervisedlearningmedicalimagesegmentationevidentialdeeppseudo-labelgenerationuncertaintyquantificationcurriculumFisherinformationclass-awarefusion
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

The paper claims that semi-supervised medical image segmentation can be made far more label-efficient by treating two collaborating networks as sources of evidence rather than as soft-label voters. It proposes mutual evidential deep learning (MEDL), in which a VNet and a 3D-ResVNet each emit evidential predictions, a class-aware evidential fusion rule combines them into pseudo-labels for unlabeled volumes, and a Fisher-information-based evidential loss schedules training from certain voxels to uncertain ones. A reliability mask built from the fused uncertainty suppresses low-quality pseudo-labels before they are used as supervision. On five public datasets, the paper reports that with only 5% labeled data MEDL matches or beats prior methods trained with 20%, and that each added component raises Dice in ablation. Label scarcity is the main bottleneck in medical segmentation, so a mechanism that safely exploits unlabeled scans would matter even if the exact gains vary across settings.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the class-aware evidential fusion rule (Eq. 3), a Dempster-combination-style product of the two sub-networks' belief masses with an added uncertainty-interaction term scaled by the class-count ratio $|C_n|/(|C_n|+|C_K|)$, which prevents the joint uncertainty mass from dominating as the number of classes grows. This fusion produces both pseudo-labels and the per-voxel uncertainty used in the reliability mask (Eq. 4), which suppresses low-confidence voxels before loss computation. The second mechanism is the asymptotic Fisher information-based evidential learning (FIE) weighting, $\omega(q,v)=\Xi\tanh(\psi(h(v))\zeta(q))+1$, which ranks voxels by uncertainty and shifts training weight from certain to uncertain voxels over epochs, combined with the Fisher-information evidential loss in Eq. 7 that avoids penalizing potentially mislabeled classes in high-uncertainty voxels.

What would settle it

Take a held-out portion of the unlabeled pool, have each sub-network produce its own pseudo-label and the CAEF rule produce a fused pseudo-label, and compare all three against manual ground truth; if the fused pseudo-label does not beat the better of the two individual networks on most classes, the evidential fusion is not the source of the gain. Alternatively, replace the two heterogeneous backbones with two identical copies of VNet; if the reported advantage disappears, architectural complementarity is confirmed as the driver.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that heterogeneous-network disagreement can be turned into a training signal rather than a nuisance. Each sub-network produces per-voxel belief masses over segmentation classes plus an uncertainty mass; the class-aware evidential fusion (CAEF) reallocates these masses through a Dempster-combination-style interaction, producing fused pseudo-labels for unlabeled data and fused evidence for labeled data. The paper further claims that ranking voxels by the fused uncertainty and weighting the evidential loss so that training starts on reliable voxels and gradually includes harder ones—while avoiding over-penalization of mislabeled classes—improves both robustness and final Dice. Experiments across left atrium MRI, pancreas CT, aortic dissection CTA, cardiac MRI, and brain tumor MRI report state-of-the-art results, with the strongest comparisons on TBAD where 5% labeled data surpasses prior methods at 20%.

Load-bearing premise

The whole gain rests on the two networks making different, complementary mistakes on unlabeled data, so their fused pseudo-labels are better than either network's own; the paper asserts this complementarity but reports no per-network accuracy or error-overlap measurement to confirm it.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the reported results hold, a 5% labeled training set can yield segmentation quality comparable to prior methods using 20%, which would cut annotation cost roughly fourfold across modalities such as CTA, MRI, and CT.
  • The fusion rule only assumes complementary evidence from two differently built networks, so the mechanism should transfer to other backbone pairs beyond VNet and 3D-ResVNet.
  • The uncertainty-scheduled curriculum removes the need for a fixed pseudo-label confidence threshold, since training automatically starts from reliable voxels and incorporates harder ones as epochs progress.
  • Applying the same evidential fusion to labeled data, not just pseudo-labels, is reported to add further gains, suggesting the method improves supervised learning itself rather than only semi-supervised exploitation.
  • The component ablation attributes measurable Dice increases to each part of the pipeline, indicating that fusion, reliability masking, and curriculum weighting each contribute independently.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct test of the complementarity assumption would be to measure the error overlap between the two sub-networks on unlabeled data; if their mistakes are largely correlated, CAEF is mostly averaging rather than correcting, and the gains should shrink.
  • The class-count discounting coefficient suggests a general principle for evidential fusion: as the number of candidate classes grows, uncertainty mass should be down-weighted during combination, which could transfer to multi-class classification beyond segmentation.
  • The same uncertainty ranking that drives the curriculum could be reused for active learning, proposing the most informative voxels or slices for human annotation instead of only consuming them as pseudo-labels.
  • Replacing both sub-networks with two identical copies of the same architecture in an ablation would isolate whether architectural diversity, rather than simple ensembling, is what makes the fused pseudo-labels reliable.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

5 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes MEDL, a semi-supervised medical image segmentation framework in which two architecturally different networks produce evidential predictions. For unlabeled data, a class-aware evidential fusion (CAEF) rule, Eq. (3), combines the belief masses of the two networks into pseudo-labels; an uncertainty-based reliability mask, Eq. (4), filters these pseudo-labels; and an asymptotic Fisher-information evidential learning (FIE) schedule, Eqs. (6)--(9), gradually shifts training from confident to uncertain voxels. For labeled data, a similar uncertainty-weighted loss is applied. The method is evaluated on LA, Pancreas-CT, TBAD, ACDC, and BraTS2018, reporting state-of-the-art results, including a headline claim that 5% labeled data on TBAD outperforms competing methods that use 20% labeled data. The paper's central technical contribution is the CAEF formula and the uncertainty-based curriculum built on it.

Significance. If the theoretical core were sound, the proposed framework would be a useful contribution to semi-supervised medical segmentation, particularly because it combines evidence from heterogeneous network architectures and uses uncertainty to schedule learning. The manuscript has notable strengths: it evaluates on five public benchmarks, compares against many recent methods, includes component ablations, and reports voxel-level uncertainty reasoning. However, the load-bearing fusion equation is not a valid normalized evidential combination and the reliability measure built on it is ill-defined, so the claimed advantages of "evidential fusion" are not established as written. The empirical tables also contain internal inconsistencies that must be corrected before the results can be assessed. The central idea may be salvageable, but the current presentation is not technically reliable.

major comments (5)
  1. [II-C, Eq. (3)] Equation (3) is not a normalized evidential fusion and cannot produce valid belief masses as written. With K classes, writing p_in = b_Ni(C_n), u_i = b_Ni(C_K), and c = |C_n|/(|C_n|+|C_K|), the sum of the unnormalized fused masses over all K+1 focal elements is T = u_1 u_2 + sum_n p_1n p_2n + c(u_1 + u_2 - 2u_1 u_2), which is not identically 1. In the extreme case p_1 = (1,0,...,0), p_2 = (0,1,0,...,0), u_1 = u_2 = 0, the sum is 0, so no normalized pseudo-label exists. The sentence in the text saying that the fused probability mass assignments are "supposed to be normalized" does not supply the normalization constant or a conflict-mass term. In addition, |C_K| is stated as K in Eq. (3) but as K-1 in Eq. (2), which changes the coefficient c. Since CAEF is the source of the pseudo-labels and of the uncertainty b(C_K) used in Eq. (4), the central 5%-vs-20% claim in Sec. III-B rests on an uncalibrated fusion operation.
  2. [II-C, Eq. (4)] Equation (4) defines reliability as R = exp(b(C_K)) / sum_{n=0}^{N-1} zeta_n log_2 zeta_n, but no guard is given for a zero denominator, and the zeta_n are the unnormalized masses produced by Eq. (3). When the fused mass is concentrated on one class, the entropy term approaches zero and R becomes unbounded; when the two networks are confident but disagree, b(C_K) is approximately zero, so the disagreement is not penalized. The index N is also not defined and is inconsistent with the K-class notation used elsewhere. The reliability mask that filters pseudo-labels therefore cannot be relied on to down-weight exactly the voxels where fusion is most unreliable.
  3. [II-D, Eqs. (6), (7), (9)] Several quantities required to reproduce the curriculum are unspecified. The amplitude Xi in Eq. (6) is never given; psi_1(alpha_vn) in Eq. (7) is not defined; lambda_2 in the Fisher-information term is not specified; and lambda_GWU in Eq. (9) is called "self-adaptive" but no update rule is provided. The text says that a Gaussian warming-up function controls lambda_GWU following reference [47], but the concrete schedule is absent. Table VII varies only (lambda_1, lambda_2), so the sensitivity of the method to the other hyperparameters is unknown. Moreover, the manuscript asserts in Sec. II-C that the two different architectures generate complementary evidence, but it reports no per-subnet Dice or disagreement statistics; without such measurements, the pseudo-label gain cannot be distinguished from simple ensembling or from the uncertainty-based weighting alone.
  4. [III-B, Tables I--III] The empirical claims are not fully supported by the tables as printed. In Table II, the LA rows for URPC and MC-Net are identical at the 5% and 10% labeled ratios (Dice 86.92/87.62, Jaccard 77.03/78.25, 95HD 11.13/10.03, ASD 2.28/1.82), which is implausible and suggests a copying error. In Table III, the Ours rows report ASD values larger than the corresponding 95HD values (e.g., RV: ASD 7.28 vs 95HD 1.70; Myo: ASD 2.87 vs 95HD 0.98), which is geometrically impossible under the standard definitions of these metrics; the formatting also runs numbers together, making the table difficult to read. The authors should provide corrected tables and verify every reported value.
  5. [III-B, abstract and contributions] The headline statement that "the proposed method achieves superior performance using only 5% of labeled data compared to other methods using 20% of labeled data" is made specifically for the TBAD dataset in Sec. III-B, but the abstract and the contributions section claim general state-of-the-art performance. In Table II, at the 5% labeled ratio MEDL does not uniformly dominate: on ACDC, Ours has 95HD = 4.80 versus Co-BioNet's 1.11 and BCP's 1.90; on Pancreas-CT, Ours has 95HD = 8.75 versus Co-BioNet's 5.43. The paper should state precisely on which datasets, ratios, and metrics MEDL is superior, rather than claiming to "far outperform previous state of the arts."
minor comments (4)
  1. [II-A] The heading contains a typo: "Backgoround" should be "Background."
  2. [II-B, Eq. (2)] The cardinality of the multiple-objective set C_K is inconsistent: Eq. (2) says its cardinality is K-1, while Eq. (3) uses |C_K| = K; this should be reconciled throughout the derivation.
  3. [II-D, Eq. (7)] The notation L^I_{j,v} and L^{fiel}_{j,v} appears to mix; the subscript j is used for both sample index and the FIE loss, and the symbol psi_1 is never defined.
  4. [III, inference] The text says the final output is the mean of both subnet outputs, but earlier sections describe interaction and fusion of predictions; the relation between training-time fusion and test-time averaging should be clarified.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: central claims rest on external benchmarks; self-citations are heavy but not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's load-bearing claim is empirical: MEDL is evaluated against external benchmarks (LA, Pancreas-CT, TBAD, ACDC, BraTS2018) and compared with published SOTA methods. The fusion formula (Eq. 3), reliability mask (Eq. 4), and curriculum weighting (Eqs. 5-7) are explicitly defined in the manuscript, so the pipeline does not import its central mechanism by citation. The many self-citations ([5], [6], [7], [12], [13]-[27]) supply background and prior evidential-fusion vocabulary, but the equations needed to reproduce the method are present, and the performance numbers are not re-statements of any fitted parameter or of the cited papers. The choice lambda1=lambda2=0.5 from Table VII is test-set hyperparameter selection, and Eq. 3's phrase 'the fused probability mass assignments are supposed to be normalized' reveals an incomplete normalization/conflict term; both are correctness and external-validity concerns rather than circular derivations. No step reduces a predicted quantity to an input by construction, so the circularity score is low; I assign 2 to reflect the dense but non-load-bearing self-citation.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on several heuristics that are asserted rather than derived (fusion rule, reliability, curriculum schedule), plus hyperparameters chosen on the test set or left unspecified. The method does not introduce a new physical entity; the 'multiple objective sets' mapping in Eq. 2 is a re-labeling of uncertainty mass rather than a new entity.

free parameters (4)
  • lambda1, lambda2 (labeled uncertainty fusion weights, Eq. 5) = (0.5, 0.5) via Table VII ablation
    Chosen as the best pair from a scan over the test set; the selection is part of the reported result, not a fixed prior.
  • Xi (dynamic weight amplitude, Eq. 6) = not reported
    Controls the change amplitude of the curriculum weights; no value or schedule is given in the text.
  • lambda_GWU (Gaussian warming-up weight, Eq. 9) = following [47], not specified
    Self-adaptive hyperparameter controlling the unlabeled loss contribution; the schedule is borrowed but not stated.
  • lambda2 in FIE loss (Eq. 7) = not reported
    Weight for the log-determinant Fisher information regularization term; written with the same symbol as the fusion lambda2 in Eq. 5, creating a naming conflict.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Belief masses and uncertainties of voxel predictions follow Subjective Logic / Dirichlet EDL (Eq. 1).
    Borrowed from Sensoy et al. [29]; assumes network outputs can be interpreted as Dirichlet evidence.
  • ad hoc to paper Two architecturally different networks produce complementary, fusible evidence for the same voxels (Sec. II-C).
    No analysis or experiment establishes complementarity; it is asserted to motivate Eq. 3.
  • ad hoc to paper The class-aware fusion rule Eq. 3 produces valid, normalized probability mass assignments.
    The paper states normalization is 'supposed to be' satisfied but does not prove it; the coefficient |Cn|/(|Cn|+|CN|) is introduced ad hoc.
  • ad hoc to paper Voxel reliability follows Eq. 4, e^{b_CK}/sum(zeta log zeta), and can be used to mask pseudo-labels.
    A heuristic formula; no derivation and no guard for zero entropy; the exponentiation and entropy division are not motivated by a theorem.
  • ad hoc to paper The curriculum weighting omega(q,v) in Eq. 6, with Tanh and rank-based scheduling, improves learning.
    Heuristic curriculum schedule; no convergence or bias analysis; depends on unspecified Xi.
  • standard math I-EDL loss from [45] is a suitable uncertainty-aware objective for pseudo-labeled voxels.
    Taken from the published I-EDL method; treated as background.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Mutual Evidential Deep Learning for Medical Image Segmentation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/INTXB5G3

@misc{pith2026250512418,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Mutual Evidential Deep Learning for Medical Image Segmentation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/INTXB5G3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.12418}
}
read the original abstract

Existing semi-supervised medical segmentation co-learning frameworks have realized that model performance can be diminished by the biases in model recognition caused by low-quality pseudo-labels. Due to the averaging nature of their pseudo-label integration strategy, they fail to explore the reliability of pseudo-labels from different sources. In this paper, we propose a mutual evidential deep learning (MEDL) framework that offers a potentially viable solution for pseudo-label generation in semi-supervised learning from two perspectives. First, we introduce networks with different architectures to generate complementary evidence for unlabeled samples and adopt an improved class-aware evidential fusion to guide the confident synthesis of evidential predictions sourced from diverse architectural networks. Second, utilizing the uncertainty in the fused evidence, we design an asymptotic Fisher information-based evidential learning strategy. This strategy enables the model to initially focus on unlabeled samples with more reliable pseudo-labels, gradually shifting attention to samples with lower-quality pseudo-labels while avoiding over-penalization of mislabeled classes in high data uncertainty samples. Additionally, for labeled data, we continue to adopt an uncertainty-driven asymptotic learning strategy, gradually guiding the model to focus on challenging voxels. Extensive experiments on five mainstream datasets have demonstrated that MEDL achieves state-of-the-art performance.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.12418 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Specifically, the mutual evidential deep learning [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. The overview of Mutual Evidential Deep Learning framework. We use two different segmentation models to predict [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Visualization results on the LA, Pancreas, and TBAD datasets. The first, second, and third rows show the results of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Visualization results on the ACDC dataset. The first, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: 10% labeled ratio performance comparison on the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

69 extracted references · 63 canonical work pages

  1. [12]

    Mutual evidential deep learning for semi-supervised medical image segmentation,

    Y . He, Y . Bi, L. Li, C.-M. Pun, W. Jiao, and Z. Jin, “Mutual evidential deep learning for semi-supervised medical image segmentation,” in 2024 IEEE International Conference on Bioinformatics and Biomedicine (BIBM). IEEE, 2024, pp. 2010–2017

    work page 2024

  2. [5]

    Uncertainty-aware evidential fusion-based learn- ing for semi-supervised medical image segmentation,

    Y . He and L. Li, “Uncertainty-aware evidential fusion-based learn- ing for semi-supervised medical image segmentation,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.06177, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  3. [6]

    Co-evidential fusion with information volume for semi-supervised medical image segmentation,

    Y . He, L. Li, T. Zhan, C.-M. Pun, W. Jiao, and Z. Jin, “Co-evidential fusion with information volume for semi-supervised medical image segmentation,”Pattern Recognition, vol. 166, p. 111639, 2025

    work page 2025

  4. [47]

    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,” inMedical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention - MICCAI 2020 - 23rd International Conference, Lima, Peru, October 4-8, 2020, Proceedings, Part I, 2020

    work page 2020

  5. [1]

    Devil is in the queries: Advancing mask transformers for real- world medical image segmentation and out-of-distribution localization,

    M. Yuan, Y . Xia, H. Dong, Z. Chen, J. Yao, M. Qiu, K. Yan, X. Yin, Y . Shi, X. Chen, Z. Liu, B. Dong, J. Zhou, L. Lu, L. Zhang, and L. Zhang, “Devil is in the queries: Advancing mask transformers for real- world medical image segmentation and out-of-distribution localization,” inIEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, CVPR 2023, V...

    work page 2023

  6. [2]

    Redefining radiology: A review of artificial intelligence integration in medical imaging,

    R. Najjar, “Redefining radiology: A review of artificial intelligence integration in medical imaging,”Diagnostics, 2023

    work page 2023

  7. [3]

    Unified medical image segmentation by learning from uncertainty in an end- to-end manner,

    P. Tang, P. Yang, D. Nie, X. Wu, J. Zhou, and Y . Wang, “Unified medical image segmentation by learning from uncertainty in an end- to-end manner,”Knowledge-Based Systems, 2022

    work page 2022

  8. [4]

    Uncertainty-aware prediction validator in deep learning models for cyber-physical system data,

    F. O. Catak, T. Yue, and S. Ali, “Uncertainty-aware prediction validator in deep learning models for cyber-physical system data,”ACM Trans- actions on Software Engineering and Methodology (TOSEM), 2022

    work page 2022

Show all 69 references
  1. [7]

    Epl: Evidential prototype learning for semi-supervised medical image segmentation,

    Y . He, “Epl: Evidential prototype learning for semi-supervised medical image segmentation,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.06181, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  2. [8]

    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,”Medical Image Analysis, 2022

    2022

  3. [9]

    Multi-prototype-based embedding refinement for medical image segmentation,

    Y . Bi, E. Che, Y . Chen, Y . He, and J. Qu, “Multi-prototype-based embedding refinement for medical image segmentation,” inICASSP 2025-2025 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP). IEEE, 2025, pp. 1–5

    2025

  4. [10]

    Efficient prototype consistency learning in semi-supervised medical image segmentation via joint uncertainty and data augmentation,

    L. Li, Y . He, and C.-M. Pun, “Efficient prototype consistency learning in semi-supervised medical image segmentation via joint uncertainty and data augmentation,” in2024 IEEE International Conference on Bioinformatics and Biomedicine (BIBM). IEEE, 2024, pp. 2114–2121

    2024

  5. [11]

    Unitrans: A unified vertical federated knowledge transfer framework for enhancing cross-hospital collaboration,

    C.-j. Huang, Y . He, X. Han, W. Jiao, Z. Jin, and L. Wang, “Unitrans: A unified vertical federated knowledge transfer framework for enhancing cross-hospital collaboration,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.11388, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  6. [13]

    Mmget: a markov model for generalized evidence theory,

    Y . He and Y . Deng, “Mmget: a markov model for generalized evidence theory,”Computational and Applied Mathematics, vol. 41, pp. 1–41, 2022

    2022

  7. [14]

    Ordinal belief entropy,

    Y . He and Y . Deng, “Ordinal belief entropy,”Soft Computing, vol. 27, no. 11, pp. 6973–6981, 2023

    2023

  8. [15]

    Conflicting management of evidence combination from the point of improvement of basic probability assignment,

    Y . He and F. Xiao, “Conflicting management of evidence combination from the point of improvement of basic probability assignment,”Inter- national Journal of Intelligent Systems, vol. 36, no. 5, pp. 1914–1942, 2021

    1914

  9. [16]

    A new base function in basic probability assignment for conflict management,

    Y . He and F. Xiao, “A new base function in basic probability assignment for conflict management,”Applied Intelligence, vol. 52, no. 4, pp. 4473– 4487, 2022

    2022

  10. [17]

    Ordinal fuzzy entropy,

    Y . He and Y . Deng, “Ordinal fuzzy entropy,”Iranian Journal of Fuzzy Systems, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 171–186, 2022

    2022

  11. [18]

    Tdqmf: Two-dimensional quantum mass function,

    Y . He and Y . Deng, “Tdqmf: Two-dimensional quantum mass function,” Information Sciences, vol. 621, pp. 749–765, 2023

    2023

  12. [19]

    Time evidence fusion network: Multi-source view in long-term time series forecasting,

    T. Zhan, Y . He, Y . Deng, Z. Li, W. Du, and Q. Wen, “Time evidence fusion network: Multi-source view in long-term time series forecasting,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.06419, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  13. [20]

    A matrix-based distance of pythagorean fuzzy set and its application in medical diagnosis,

    Y . He, L. Li, and T. Zhan, “A matrix-based distance of pythagorean fuzzy set and its application in medical diagnosis,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2102.01538, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  14. [21]

    An adaptive framework for multi- view clustering leveraging conditional entropy optimization,

    L. Li, Y . He, and C.-M. Pun, “An adaptive framework for multi- view clustering leveraging conditional entropy optimization,” inICASSP 2025-2025 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), 2025

    2025

  15. [22]

    Generalized uncertainty- based evidential fusion with hybrid multi-head attention for weak- supervised temporal action localization,

    Y . He, L. Li, T. Zhan, W. Jiao, and C.-M. Pun, “Generalized uncertainty- based evidential fusion with hybrid multi-head attention for weak- supervised temporal action localization,” inICASSP 2024-2024 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (I...

    2024

  16. [23]

    Nndf: A new neural detection network for aspect-category sentiment analysis,

    L. Li, Y . He, and L. Li, “Nndf: A new neural detection network for aspect-category sentiment analysis,” inInternational Conference on Knowledge Science, Engineering and Management. Springer International Publishing Cham, 2022, pp. 339–355

    2022

  17. [24]

    Differential convolutional fuzzy time series forecasting,

    T. Zhan, Y . He, Y . Deng, and Z. Li, “Differential convolutional fuzzy time series forecasting,”IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 831–845, 2023

    2023

  18. [25]

    Residual feature- reutilization inception network,

    Y . He, W. Song, L. Li, T. Zhan, and W. Jiao, “Residual feature- reutilization inception network,”Pattern Recognition, p. 110439, 2024

    2024

  19. [26]

    Revisit self-debugging with self-generated tests for code generation,

    X. Chen, Z. Tao, K. Zhang, C. Zhou, W. Gu, Y . He, M. Zhang, X. Cai, H. Zhao, and Z. Jin, “Revisit self-debugging with self-generated tests for code generation,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.12793, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  20. [27]

    Spatio-temporal variability analysis of vegetation dynamics in china from 2000 to 2022 based on leaf area index: A multi-temporal image classification perspective,

    T. Xu, K. Yan, Y . He, S. Gao, K. Yang, J. Wang, J. Liu, and Z. Liu, “Spatio-temporal variability analysis of vegetation dynamics in china from 2000 to 2022 based on leaf area index: A multi-temporal image classification perspective,”Remote Sensing, vol. 15, no. 12, p. 2975, 2023

    2000

  21. [28]

    Jøsang,Subjective Logic - A Formalism for Reasoning Under Uncertainty, 2016

    A. Jøsang,Subjective Logic - A Formalism for Reasoning Under Uncertainty, 2016

    2016

  22. [29]

    Evidential deep learning to quantify classification uncertainty,

    M. Sensoy, L. M. Kaplan, and M. Kandemir, “Evidential deep learning to quantify classification uncertainty,” inAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems 31: Annual Conference on Neural Information Pro- cessing Systems 2018, NeurIPS 2018, December 3-8, 2018, Montr ´eal,...

    2018

  23. [30]

    Upper and lower probabilities induced by a multivalued mapping,

    A. P. Dempster, “Upper and lower probabilities induced by a multivalued mapping,” inClassic Works of the Dempster-Shafer Theory of Belief Functions, 2008

    2008

  24. [31]

    Trusted multi-view classifica- tion with dynamic evidential fusion,

    Z. Han, C. Zhang, H. Fu, and J. T. Zhou, “Trusted multi-view classifica- tion with dynamic evidential fusion,”IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell., 2023

    2023

  25. [32]

    Trusted multi-view classi- fication,

    Z. Han, C. Zhang, H. Fu, and J. T. Zhou, “Trusted multi-view classi- fication,” in9th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2021, Virtual Event, Austria, May 3-7, 2021, 2021

    2021

  26. [33]

    Mean teachers are better role mod- els: Weight-averaged consistency targets improve semi-supervised deep learning results,

    A. Tarvainen and H. Valpola, “Mean teachers are better role mod- els: Weight-averaged consistency targets improve semi-supervised deep learning results,”Advances in neural information processing systems, 2017

    2017

  27. [34]

    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,” inPro- ceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2023

    2023

  28. [35]

    Adaptive affinity loss and erroneous pseudo-label refinement for weakly supervised semantic segmentation,

    X. Zhang, Z. Peng, P. Zhu, T. Zhang, C. Li, H. Zhou, and L. Jiao, “Adaptive affinity loss and erroneous pseudo-label refinement for weakly supervised semantic segmentation,” inProceedings of the 29th ACM international conference on multimedia, 2021

    2021

  29. [36]

    Uncertainty-aware pseudo label refinery for domain adaptive semantic segmentation,

    Y . Wang, J. Peng, and Z. Zhang, “Uncertainty-aware pseudo label refinery for domain adaptive semantic segmentation,” inProceedings of the IEEE/CVF international conference on computer vision, 2021

    2021

  30. [37]

    A mathematical theory of communication,

    C. E. Shannon, “A mathematical theory of communication,”Bell Syst. Tech. J., 1948

    1948

  31. [38]

    Upcol: Uncertainty-informed prototype consistency learning for semi- supervised medical image segmentation,

    W. Lu, J. Lei, P. Qiu, R. Sheng, J. Zhou, X. Lu, and Y . Yang, “Upcol: Uncertainty-informed prototype consistency learning for semi- supervised medical image segmentation,” inInternational Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention. Springer, 2023

    2023

  32. [39]

    Mean teachers are better role mod- els: Weight-averaged consistency targets improve semi-supervised deep learning results,

    A. Tarvainen and H. Valpola, “Mean teachers are better role mod- els: Weight-averaged consistency targets improve semi-supervised deep learning results,” in5th International Conference on Learning Repre- sentations, ICLR 2017, Toulon, France, April 24-26, 2017, Workshop Track ...

    2017

  33. [40]

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

    L. Yu, S. Wang, X. Li, C. Fu, and P. Heng, “Uncertainty-aware self- ensembling model for semi-supervised 3d left atrium segmentation,” in Medical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention - MIC- CAI 2019 - 22nd International Conference, Shenzhen, China, October 13-17,...

    2019

  34. [41]

    Fussnet: Fusing two sources of un- certainty for semi-supervised medical image segmentation,

    J. Xiang, P. Qiu, and Y . Yang, “Fussnet: Fusing two sources of un- certainty for semi-supervised medical image segmentation,” inMedical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention - MICCAI 2022 - 25th International Conference, Singapore, September 18-22, 2022, Proceedi...

    2022

  35. [42]

    Semi-supervised medical image segmentation via uncertainty rectified pyramid consistency,

    X. Luo, G. Wang, W. Liao, J. Chen, T. Song, Y . Chen, S. Zhang, D. N. Metaxas, and S. Zhang, “Semi-supervised medical image segmentation via uncertainty rectified pyramid consistency,”Medical Image Anal., 2022

    2022

  36. [43]

    Upcol: Uncertainty-informed prototype consistency learning for semi- supervised medical image segmentation,

    W. Lu, J. Lei, P. Qiu, R. Sheng, J. Zhou, X. Lu, and Y . Yang, “Upcol: Uncertainty-informed prototype consistency learning for semi- supervised medical image segmentation,” inMedical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention - MICCAI 2023 - 26th International Conferen...

    2023

  37. [44]

    Curriculum learning,

    Y . Bengio, J. Louradour, R. Collobert, and J. Weston, “Curriculum learning,” inProceedings of the 26th annual international conference on machine learning, 2009

    2009

  38. [45]

    Uncertainty estimation by fisher information-based evidential deep learning,

    D. Deng, G. Chen, Y . Yu, F. Liu, and P. Heng, “Uncertainty estimation by fisher information-based evidential deep learning,” inInternational Conference on Machine Learning, ICML 2023, 23-29 July 2023, Hon- olulu, Hawaii, USA

    2023

  39. [46]

    ANEDL: adaptive negative evidential deep learning for open-set semi-supervised learning,

    Y . Yu, D. Deng, F. Liu, Q. Dou, Y . Jin, G. Chen, and P. Heng, “ANEDL: adaptive negative evidential deep learning for open-set semi-supervised learning,” inThirty-Eighth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI 2024, Thirty-Sixth Conference on Innovative Applications ...

    2024

  40. [48]

    An evidential- enhanced tri-branch consistency learning method for semi-supervised medical image segmentation,

    Z. Zhang, H. Zhou, X. Shi, R. Ran, C. Tian, and F. Zhou, “An evidential- enhanced tri-branch consistency learning method for semi-supervised medical image segmentation,”CoRR, 2024

    2024

  41. [49]

    Semi-supervised semantic segmentation with cross pseudo supervision,

    X. Chen, Y . Yuan, G. Zeng, and J. Wang, “Semi-supervised semantic segmentation with cross pseudo supervision,” inIEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, CVPR 2021, virtual, June 19-25, 2021

    2021

  42. [50]

    Semi- supervised medical image segmentation using adversarial consistency learning and dynamic convolution network,

    T. Lei, D. Zhang, X. Du, X. Wang, Y . Wan, and A. K. Nandi, “Semi- supervised medical image segmentation using adversarial consistency learning and dynamic convolution network,”IEEE Trans. Medical Imaging, 2023

    2023

  43. [51]

    Inconsistency-aware uncertainty estimation for semi-supervised medical image segmentation,

    Y . Shi, J. Zhang, T. Ling, J. Lu, Y . Zheng, Q. Yu, L. Qi, and Y . Gao, “Inconsistency-aware uncertainty estimation for semi-supervised medical image segmentation,”IEEE transactions on medical imaging, 2022

    2022

  44. [52]

    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. K. Maier, X. Yang, P. Heng, D. Ni, C. Li, Q. Tong, W. Si, ´E. Puybareau, Y . Khoudli, T. G ´eraud, and J. Zhao, “A global benchmark of algorithms for segmenting the left atrium from late gadolini...

    2021

  45. [53]

    Deeporgan: Multi-level deep convolutional networks for automated pancreas segmentation,

    H. R. Roth, L. Lu, A. Farag, H. Shin, J. Liu, E. B. Turkbey, and R. M. Summers, “Deeporgan: Multi-level deep convolutional networks for automated pancreas segmentation,” inMedical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention - MICCAI 2015 - 18th International Conference ...

    2015

  46. [54]

    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,” inThirty-Fifth AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI 2021, Thirty-Third Confer- ence on Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence, IAAI 2021, ...

    2021

  47. [55]

    Imagetbad: A 3d computed tomography angiography image dataset for automatic segmentation of type-b aortic dissection,

    Z. Yao, W. Xie, J. Zhang, Y . Dong, H. Qiu, H. Yuan, Q. Jia, T. Wang, Y . Shi, J. Zhuanget al., “Imagetbad: A 3d computed tomography angiography image dataset for automatic segmentation of type-b aortic dissection,”Frontiers in Physiology, 2021

    2021

  48. [56]

    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. G. Ballesteret al., “Deep learning techniques for automatic mri cardiac multi-structures segmentation and diagnosis: is the problem solved?”IEEE transactions on medica...

    2018

  49. [57]

    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,” inIEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, CVPR 2023, Vancouver, BC, Canada, June 17-24, 2023

    2023

  50. [58]

    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,” Medical Image Anal., 2022

    2022

  51. [59]

    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,” inMedical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention - MICCAI 2022 - 25th International Conference, Singapore, September 18-22, 2022, Pr...

    2022

  52. [60]

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

    H. Peiris, M. Hayat, Z. Chen, G. F. Egan, and M. Harandi, “Uncertainty- guided dual-views for semi-supervised volumetric medical image seg- mentation,”Nat. Mac. Intell., 2023

    2023

  53. [61]

    Towards generic semi-supervised framework for volumetric medical image segmentation,

    H. Wang and X. Li, “Towards generic semi-supervised framework for volumetric medical image segmentation,” inAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems 36: Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems 2023, NeurIPS 2023, New Orleans, LA, USA, December 10 - ...

    2023

  54. [62]

    Interpo- lation consistency training for semi-supervised learning,

    V . Verma, A. Lamb, J. Kannala, Y . Bengio, and D. Lopez-Paz, “Interpo- lation consistency training for semi-supervised learning,” inProceedings of the Twenty-Eighth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intel- ligence, IJCAI 2019, Macao, China, August 10-16, 2019, 2019

    2019

  55. [63]

    EVIL: evi- dential inference learning for trustworthy semi-supervised medical image segmentation,

    Y . Chen, Z. Yang, C. Shen, Z. Wang, Y . Qin, and Y . Zhang, “EVIL: evi- dential inference learning for trustworthy semi-supervised medical image segmentation,” in20th IEEE International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging, ISBI 2023, Cartagena, Colombia, April 18-21, 2023

    2023

  56. [64]

    Belief function-based semi- supervised learning for brain tumor segmentation,

    L. Huang, S. Ruan, and T. Denoeux, “Belief function-based semi- supervised learning for brain tumor segmentation,” in18th IEEE Inter- national Symposium on Biomedical Imaging, ISBI 2021, Nice, France, April 13-16, 2021

    2021

  57. [65]

    No new-net,

    F. Isensee, P. Kickingereder, W. Wick, M. Bendszus, and K. H. Maier- Hein, “No new-net,” inBrainlesion: Glioma, Multiple Sclerosis, Stroke and Traumatic Brain Injuries - 4th International Workshop, BrainLes 2018, Held in Conjunction with MICCAI 2018, Granada, Spain, Septem- be...

    2018

  58. [66]

    3d dilated multi-fiber network for real-time brain tumor segmentation in MRI,

    C. Chen, X. Liu, M. Ding, J. Zheng, and J. Li, “3d dilated multi-fiber network for real-time brain tumor segmentation in MRI,” inMedical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention - MICCAI 2019 - 22nd International Conference, Shenzhen, China, October 13-17, 2019, Proc...

    2019

  59. [67]

    3d MRI brain tumor segmentation using autoencoder regularization,

    A. Myronenko, “3d MRI brain tumor segmentation using autoencoder regularization,” inBrainlesion: Glioma, Multiple Sclerosis, Stroke and Traumatic Brain Injuries - 4th International Workshop, BrainLes 2018, Held in Conjunction with MICCAI 2018, Granada, Spain, September 16, 201...

    2018

  60. [68]

    Active deep neural network features selection for segmentation and recognition of brain tumors using MRI images,

    M. I. Sharif, J. P. Li, M. A. Khan, and M. A. Saleem, “Active deep neural network features selection for segmentation and recognition of brain tumors using MRI images,”Pattern Recognit. Lett., 2020

    2020

  61. [69]

    Evidential pseudo-label en- semble for semi-supervised classification,

    K. Wang, C. Zhang, Y . Geng, and H. Ma, “Evidential pseudo-label en- semble for semi-supervised classification,”Pattern Recognition Letters, 2024

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.