Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Single Image Test-Time Adaptation via Multi-View Co-Training

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A pretrained 3D tumor segmenter can adapt to a new MRI domain from a single test image by co-training on three anatomical views, without source data or labels.

desk verdict Solid single-image TTA recipe with an overstated abstract and an untested pseudolabel mechanism; worth revising, not rejecting. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.23705 v1 pith:ZJZRMBHK submitted 2025-06-30 cs.CV

Smriti Joshi , Richard Osuala , Lidia Garrucho , Kaisar Kushibar , Dimitri Kessler , Oliver Diaz , Karim Lekadir This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords Test-timeadaptationSingle-imageMulti-viewco-trainingSelf-trainingUncertainty-guidedpseudolabelsVolumetricsegmentationBreastMRIDomainshift
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 tries to establish that a volumetric segmentation model trained on one MRI domain can be adapted to a different MRI domain using only a single test-time image, with no access to source data and no target labels. Its proposed method, MuVi, generates pseudolabels by taking the entropy-thresholded union of the model's own predictions on axial, sagittal, and coronal views of overlapping patches, then runs one epoch of self-training with Dice and cross-entropy losses plus consistency constraints across views and features. On two public target breast-MRI domains, the method reports Dice similarity coefficients of 0.6811 and 0.6588, close to supervised upper bounds and better than five compared test-time adaptation methods, which the abstract summarizes as a 3.75-point average Dice advantage over prior state of the art. A sympathetic reader would care because per-patient, on-demand inference is the realistic clinical setting, where large target batches are unavailable and every scan must be handled as it arrives.

What carries the argument

The machinery is uncertainty-guided multi-view co-training. Each test image is cut into overlapping patches; each patch is permuted to produce three views corresponding to the axial, sagittal, and coronal planes. Before training, the model predicts on each view and a pseudolabel is formed voxel-wise by the union of predictions whose entropy falls below a threshold, set to 0.4 for the highest-resolution view and 0.2 for the other views. Adaptation is a single epoch of gradient descent on the sum of three losses: a self-training term comparing each view's prediction with the pseudolabel via Dice and cross-entropy, a consistency term between transformed views and the original view, and a feature-embedding cosine alignment between views. The source batch-normalization statistics are frozen, only the affine parameters are updated, and the model is reset to its source weights for each new test image.

What would settle it

Apply MuVi to a target MRI domain chosen so the source model is confidently wrong on most tumor voxels, for example a different contrast-agent timing that makes healthy tissue enhance; if per-image post-adaptation Dice is no higher than the unadapted baseline across a set of test scans, the entropy-threshold pseudolabel is not a reliable teacher. A more direct check is to compute the Dice coefficient between MuVi's pseudolabel and the true segmentation for each test image: if low pseudolabel Dice coexists with large adaptation gains, then the reported gains are not explained by the claimed self-training mechanism.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that source-free test-time adaptation succeeds for volumetric tumor segmentation even when the target consists of a single image, if the network is taught to agree with itself across the three orthogonal anatomical views. MuVi keeps the pretrained batch-normalization mean and variance fixed, adapts only the affine parameters by backpropagating a self-training loss, and builds the supervision signal as an entropy-threshold union: for each view, voxels whose predicted probability is confident (entropy below a threshold) are unioned into a pseudolabel, with a higher threshold for the highest-resolution view. The paper reports DSC 0.6811 versus 0.6435 for the best compared method on the first target domain, and 0.6588 versus 0.6606 on the second, and interprets these numbers as near-supervised performance with an average 3.75-point DSC gain over existing methods. On the second domain with instance normalization, the method reports boundary distances (Hausdorff and average surface distance) below the fully supervised benchmark.

Load-bearing premise

The method rests on the assumption that the model's own confident predictions on a new image are mostly correct, so training against them improves the model; if the model is confidently wrong on that image, self-training amplifies the errors.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Per-patient, on-demand adaptation becomes practical: each incoming volume can be adapted in a single epoch and the model can then be reset to its source weights, avoiding cumulative drift.
  • Volumetric information can be exploited at test time even with batch size one, by enforcing consistency across axial, sagittal, and coronal views.
  • Freezing source batch-normalization statistics while adapting only affine parameters avoids the instability of test-batch statistics on single images; instance normalization offers a batch-free alternative with lower boundary errors on one target domain.
  • A standard 3D segmentation pipeline can be turned into a label-free single-image adapter by adding the entropy-threshold pseudolabel and view-consistency losses, requiring only one epoch of training.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Inference: The fixed entropy thresholds, 0.4 and 0.2, are tuned on validation and may not transfer across modalities or shift severities; an automatic threshold-selection rule is a natural extension the paper does not explore.
  • Inference: Because the model resets for every scan, knowledge gained from one patient is discarded; a variant that carries adapted parameters across a patient's serial scans could trade drift for faster per-scan adaptation.
  • Inference: The view-consistency losses encode a general inductive bias, axis-permutation invariance, that could be added to any volumetric segmenter at test time even without pseudolabels, which is a testable extension.
  • Inference: The larger gains appear on the domain where the source model starts weaker, suggesting the benefit may scale with domain-shift severity; the paper does not vary shift severity systematically, so a controlled study would test that relationship.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes MuVi, a source-free single-image test-time adaptation method for volumetric breast MRI tumor segmentation. Starting from a nnUNet 3D U-Net pretrained on Duke DCE-MRI with batch normalization, MuVi adapts all parameters in a single epoch on each target image. It constructs a pseudolabel via an entropy-thresholded union of predictions from axial, coronal, and sagittal views, then trains over patches with a combined objective of pseudolabel supervision, view-consistency, and cosine feature alignment. Source batch-normalization statistics are kept fixed while affine parameters are updated. Experiments on TCGA-BRCA and ISPY1 compare MuVi against PTN, Tent, BNAdapt, InTent, and MEMO, and include ablations and an instance-normalization variant.

Significance. If the reported gains are reproducible, the contribution is practically useful: it removes the need for source data, target annotations, or large test batches, and the one-epoch adaptation is well matched to per-patient inference. The paper also ships a public codebase and provides a useful analysis of normalization-layer choices. However, the evidence is currently mixed: the abstract's headline improvement is not supported by the ISPY1 results, and the central self-training mechanism is not directly validated. The method is promising rather than established.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract; Tables 2 and 3] The abstract's claim that MuVi outperforms all SOTA methods on average by a DSC of 3.75% is not supported by the reported tables. Against the best SOTA method, MuVi improves on TCGA-BRCA by 3.76 points (0.6811 vs 0.6435) but is worse on ISPY1 by 0.18 points (0.6588 vs InTent 0.6606). No averaging over the SOTA methods in Tables 2 and 3 yields 3.75%; the closest value is the single TCGA-BRCA improvement over MEMO. Please restate the claim with the correct aggregation or temper it to reflect the ISPY1 result.
  2. [Section 3.2] The sentence reporting 'the largest improvement of 5.57% and 4.13% over the baseline in terms of DSC' is inconsistent with Table 3, where MuVi gains only 0.02 points over the isotropic baseline (0.6588 vs 0.6586). The 4.13% value does not appear in the table; if it refers to the instance-normalization experiment, that value is 4.37 points. This needs correction because it directly supports the claim of consistent improvement.
  3. [Section 2.2] The method's central mechanism is self-training on pseudolabels formed by the entropy-thresholded union of the model's own predictions, with thresholds tau=0.4/0.2 tuned on validation. The paper never measures the quality of these pseudolabels. There is no precision, recall, or Dice of the accepted voxels against ground truth on any held-out labels, nor an analysis of confidently wrong voxels. Since L_sl fits all views to these labels and L_consistency reinforces them, the reported gains could in principle arise from confirmation bias rather than from genuinely reliable pseudolabel signal. Please add a pseudolabel-fidelity analysis (e.g., accepted-set Dice vs ground truth on a labeled validation subset, per-dataset coverage, and error maps) and relate it to the observed per-dataset gains.
  4. [Tables 2 and 3] No statistical significance testing is reported. With 30 test cases and standard deviations around 0.23 DSC, the differences between MuVi (0.6811) and MEMO (0.6435) on TCGA-BRCA and between MuVi (0.6588) and the baseline (0.6586) on ISPY1 cannot be assessed. Paired tests or confidence intervals across the 30 patients are needed before claiming to 'outperform' or even 'improve on' the baselines. This also applies to the instance-normalization comparison (MuVi 0.7001 vs MEMO 0.6568).
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 2.2] In the definition of the second permuted view, x''_tpi = pi_2(xtp1) should presumably be pi_2(xtpi); the subscript appears to be a typo.
  2. [Section 2.2] The feature extractor g(·) in L_cosine is not specified; please state which layer or spatial level is used and how the cosine similarity is computed across the patch dimensions.
  3. [Section 2.2] The pseudolabel threshold tuning is described as 'empirically set on the validation'; please clarify whether this is the source-data validation split and whether the same thresholds are applied to both target datasets without further adaptation.
  4. [Section 3.2] In the ablation discussion, the text says entropy-weighted labels lead to a '5.4% increase' over the non-entropy variant, but the corresponding values 0.6811 and 0.6341 give a 4.7-point gain; the numbers should be reconciled.
  5. [Figure 2] The qualitative figure lacks a caption describing which dataset, slice plane, and representative cases are shown; adding this would improve interpretability.
  6. [Table 3] The instance-normalization experiment compares MuVi only with MEMO; please state explicitly that the BN-dependent methods are excluded because they rely on source batch-norm statistics, which are not applicable under instance normalization.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: MuVi is an empirical self-training method evaluated against external ground-truth benchmarks, with no prediction reducing to a fitted constant or a load-bearing self-citation chain.

full rationale

I walked the derivation chain: source model, entropy-thresholded multi-view pseudolabels, one epoch of self-training losses (L_sl, L_consistency, L_cosine), and final test-time predictions evaluated with DSC/HD/ASD against public ground truth. The pseudolabel is built from the model's own predictions, but this is the mechanism of any self-training method, not a hidden equivalence: the reported DSC is measured against held-out ground truth, and the thresholds tau=0.4/0.2 are explicitly set on validation ('These thresholds are empirically set on the validation, with values explored within the range of [0.1, 0.6]'), so they are not fitted to the reported test numbers. The ablations compare variants against baselines and SOTA on public datasets, so the central claim is empirical and self-contained. Self-citations ([7], [11], [12]) are used for dataset access, background on inter-observer variability, and prior UDA experiments; none is invoked as a uniqueness theorem or as the justification that the method must work. The confirmation-bias risk of self-training is a correctness/robustness concern, not circularity: the paper would be circular only if it defined its output as the pseudolabel and then reported that output as an independent prediction, which it does not. Therefore no step reduces by construction to its own inputs.

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

The central claim rests on four hand-set quantities: two entropy thresholds tuned on validation (0.4 and 0.2), three loss weights set to unity, and the isotropic patch size. The method also assumes that self-training with the model's own confident predictions improves rather than corrupts the target model, that source BN statistics beat single-image statistics, and that axis-permuted views yield consistent predictions. No new entities are introduced; the three views are permutations of the same patch.

free parameters (4)
  • entropy threshold for highest-resolution view (tau_high) = 0.4
    Set empirically on the validation set within the explored range [0.1, 0.6]; controls which voxels enter the pseudolabel union (Section 2.2).
  • entropy threshold for other views (tau_low) = 0.2
    Set empirically on the validation set; a more permissive threshold for lower-resolution planes (Section 2.2).
  • loss weights lambda_1, lambda_2, lambda_3 = 1, 1, 1
    Chosen by hand to weigh self-learning, consistency, and cosine losses equally in the baseline implementation (Section 2.2).
  • isotropic patch size = [128, 128, 128]
    Selected after showing it adds 7.4% DSC over the nnUNet anisotropic patch; a design choice that drives part of the reported improvement (Section 3.2).
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Self-training with entropy-thresholded pseudolabels improves target-domain accuracy for tumor segmentation.
    The adaptation loop is supervised solely by the model's own confident predictions (Section 2.2); if these are biased, errors compound.
  • domain assumption Source batch normalization statistics (mu_s, sigma_s) approximate the target distribution better than statistics computed from a single test image.
    The method freezes source BN statistics and adapts only gamma and beta; the ablation without source statistics collapses to DSC 0.3813 (Section 2.2, Table 2).
  • domain assumption A 3D segmentation model trained on axial volumes yields predictions that are consistent enough across axis-permuted views for the consistency loss and pseudolabel union to be meaningful.
    Multi-view co-training treats permutations pi_1 and pi_2 of each patch as complementary views, assuming near-rotation-equivariant behavior (Section 2.2).
  • standard math Per-pixel prediction entropy is a reliable proxy for pseudolabel confidence.
    Standard practice in self-training; the thresholds are tuned on validation rather than derived (Section 2.2).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Single Image Test-Time Adaptation via Multi-View Co-Training." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZJZRMBHK

@misc{pith2026250623705,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Single Image Test-Time Adaptation via Multi-View Co-Training},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZJZRMBHK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.23705}
}
read the original abstract

Test-time adaptation enables a trained model to adjust to a new domain during inference, making it particularly valuable in clinical settings where such on-the-fly adaptation is required. However, existing techniques depend on large target domain datasets, which are often impractical and unavailable in medical scenarios that demand per-patient, real-time inference. Moreover, current methods commonly focus on two-dimensional images, failing to leverage the volumetric richness of medical imaging data. Bridging this gap, we propose a Patch-Based Multi-View Co-Training method for Single Image Test-Time adaptation. Our method enforces feature and prediction consistency through uncertainty-guided self-training, enabling effective volumetric segmentation in the target domain with only a single test-time image. Validated on three publicly available breast magnetic resonance imaging datasets for tumor segmentation, our method achieves performance close to the upper bound supervised benchmark while also outperforming all existing state-of-the-art methods, on average by a Dice Similarity Coefficient of 3.75%. We publicly share our accessible codebase, readily integrable with the popular nnUNet framework, at https://github.com/smriti-joshi/muvi.git.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.23705 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Pipeline of the proposed method MuVi. (a) Our setup where the source [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Qualitative segmentation results from different methods. Our method [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Mask-Guided Multi-Channel SwinUNETR Framework for Robust MRI Classification

    cs.CV 2025-08 conditional novelty 3.0 of 10

    A mask-guided, multi-channel SwinUNETR ensemble classifies breast MRI into normal, benign, or malignant and achieved second place in the ODELIA challenge.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

29 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

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

    Bateson, M., Lombaert, H., Ben Ayed, I.: Test-time adaptation with shape mo- ments for image segmentation. In: International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention. pp. 736–745. Springer (2022)

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    Journal of digital imaging 26, 1045–1057 (2013)

    Clark, K., Vendt, B., Smith, K., Freymann, J., Kirby, J., Koppel, P., Moore, S., Phillips, S., Maffitt, D., Pringle, M., et al.: The cancer imaging archive (tcia): main- taining and operating a public information repository. Journal of digital imaging 26, 1045–1057 (2013)

    2013

  3. [3]

    In: Pro- ceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recogni- tion

    Dong, H., Konz, N., Gu, H., Mazurowski, M.A.: Medical image segmentation with intent: Integrated entropy weighting for single image test-time adaptation. In: Pro- ceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recogni- tion. pp. 5046–5055 (2024)

    work page 2024

  4. [4]

    Medical Image Analysis83, 102628 (2023)

    Dorent, R., Kujawa, A., Ivory, M., Bakas, S., Rieke, N., Joutard, S., Glocker, B., Cardoso, J., Modat, M., Batmanghelich, K., et al.: Crossmoda 2021 challenge: Benchmark of cross-modality domain adaptation techniques for vestibular schwan- noma and cochlea segmentation. Medical Image Analysis83, 102628 (2023)

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

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

    Fang, C., Wang, L., Zhang, D., Xu, J., Yuan, Y., Han, J.: Incremental cross-view mutual distillation for self-supervised medical ct synthesis. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. pp. 20677– 20686 (2022)

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    In: NeurIPS 2021 Workshop on Distribution Shifts: Connecting Methods and Appli- cations (2021)

    Fleuret, F., et al.: Test time adaptation through perturbation robustness. In: NeurIPS 2021 Workshop on Distribution Shifts: Connecting Methods and Appli- cations (2021)

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    A large-scale multicenter breast cancer DCE-MRI benchmark dataset with expert segmentations

    Garrucho, L., Kushibar, K., Reidel, C.A., Joshi, S., Osuala, R., Tsirikoglou, A., Bobowicz, M., del Riego, J., Catanese, A., Gwoździewicz, K., et al.: A large-scale multicenter breast cancer DCE-MRI benchmark dataset with expert segmenta- tions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.13844 (2024)

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    Hu, M., Song, T., Gu, Y., Luo, X., Chen, J., Chen, Y., Zhang, Y., Zhang, S.: Fully test-time adaptation for image segmentation. In: Medical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention–MICCAI 2021: 24th International Confer- ence, Strasbourg, France, September 27–October 1, 2021, Proceedings, Part III 24. pp. 251–260. Springer (2021) 10 S. Joshi et al

    work page 2021

Show all 29 references
  1. [9]

    Nature methods 18(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 methods 18(2), 203–211 (2021)

    2021

  2. [10]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems34, 2427–2440 (2021)

    Iwasawa,Y.,Matsuo,Y.:Test-timeclassifieradjustmentmoduleformodel-agnostic domain generalization. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems34, 2427–2440 (2021)

    2021

  3. [11]

    In: Medical Imaging 2024: Image Processing

    Joshi,S.,Osuala,R.,Garrucho,L.,Tsirikoglou,A.,delRiego,J.,Gwoździewicz,K., Kushibar, K., Diaz, O., Lekadir, K.: Leveraging epistemic uncertainty to improve tumour segmentation in breast mri: an exploratory analysis. In: Medical Imaging 2024: Image Processing. vol. 12926, pp. 2...

    2024

  4. [12]

    In: International MICCAI Brainlesion Workshop

    Joshi, S., Osuala, R., Martín-Isla, C., Campello, V.M., Sendra-Balcells, C., Lekadir, K., Escalera, S.: nn-unet training on cyclegan-translated images for cross-modal domain adaptation in biomedical imaging. In: International MICCAI Brainlesion Workshop. pp. 540–551. Springer (2021)

    2021

  5. [13]

    Scientific reports9(1), 6742 (2019)

    Kushibar, K., Valverde, S., Gonzalez-Villa, S., Bernal, J., Cabezas, M., Oliver, A., Llado,X.:Superviseddomainadaptationforautomaticsub-corticalbrainstructure segmentation with minimal user interaction. Scientific reports9(1), 6742 (2019)

    2019

  6. [14]

    International Journal of Computer Vision133(1), 31–64 (2025)

    Liang, J., He, R., Tan, T.: A comprehensive survey on test-time adaptation under distribution shifts. International Journal of Computer Vision133(1), 31–64 (2025)

    2025

  7. [15]

    In: International conference on machine learning

    Liang, J., Hu, D., Feng, J.: Do we really need to access the source data? source hy- pothesis transfer for unsupervised domain adaptation. In: International conference on machine learning. pp. 6028–6039. PMLR (2020)

    2020

  8. [16]

    cancer imag

    Lingle, W., et al.: The cancer genome atlas breast invasive carcinoma collection (tcga-brca)(version 3)[data set]. cancer imag. arch.(2016)

    2016

  9. [17]

    Liu, Y., Kothari, P., Van Delft, B., Bellot-Gurlet, B., Mordan, T., Alahi, A.: Ttt++: When does self-supervised test-time training fail or thrive? Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems34, 21808–21820 (2021)

    2021

  10. [18]

    Nature methods pp

    Maier-Hein, L., Reinke, A., Godau, P., Tizabi, M.D., Buettner, F., Christodoulou, E., Glocker, B., Isensee, F., Kleesiek, J., Kozubek, M., et al.: Metrics reloaded: recommendations for image analysis validation. Nature methods pp. 1–18 (2024)

    2024

  11. [19]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.10963 (2020)

    Nado, Z., Padhy, S., Sculley, D., D’Amour, A., Lakshminarayanan, B., Snoek, J.: Evaluating prediction-time batch normalization for robustness under covariate shift. arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.10963 (2020)

    2020 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Cancer Imaging Arch10(7) (2016)

    Newitt, D., Hylton, N., et al.: Multi-center breast dce-mri data and segmentations from patients in the i-spy 1/acrin 6657 trials. Cancer Imaging Arch10(7) (2016)

    2016

  13. [21]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.12400 (2023)

    Niu, S., Wu, J., Zhang, Y., Wen, Z., Chen, Y., Zhao, P., Tan, M.: Towards sta- ble test-time adaptation in dynamic wild world. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.12400 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  14. [22]

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

    Osowiechi, D., Hakim, G.A.V., Noori, M., Cheraghalikhani, M., Ben Ayed, I., Desrosiers, C.: Tttflow: Unsupervised test-time training with normalizing flow. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision. pp. 2126–2134 (2023)

    2023

  15. [23]

    The Can- cer Imaging Archive (2021).https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.7937/TCIA

    Saha, A., Harowicz, M.R., Grimm, L.J., Weng, J., Cain, E.H., Kim, C.E., Ghate, S.V., Walsh, R., Mazurowski, M.A.: Dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic reso- nance images of breast cancer patients with tumor locations [data set]. The Can- cer Imaging Archive (2021).https://doi.or...

    2021 doi

  16. [24]

    Schneider,S.,Rusak,E.,Eck,L.,Bringmann,O.,Brendel,W.,Bethge,M.:Improv- ingrobustnessagainstcommoncorruptionsbycovariateshiftadaptation.Advances in neural information processing systems33, 11539–11551 (2020) Single Image Test-Time Adaptation via Multi-View Co-Training 11

    2020

  17. [25]

    In: International conference on machine learning

    Sun, Y., Wang, X., Liu, Z., Miller, J., Efros, A., Hardt, M.: Test-time training with self-supervision for generalization under distribution shifts. In: International conference on machine learning. pp. 9229–9248. PMLR (2020)

    2020

  18. [26]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.10726 (2020)

    Wang, D., Shelhamer, E., Liu, S., Olshausen, B., Darrell, T.: Tent: Fully test-time adaptation by entropy minimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2006.10726 (2020)

    2020 arXiv

  19. [27]

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

    Wang, Y., Li, Z., Mei, J., Wei, Z., Liu, L., Wang, C., Sang, S., Yuille, A.L., Xie, C., Zhou, Y.: Swinmm: masked multi-view with swin transformers for 3d medical image segmentation. In: International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention. pp....

    2023

  20. [28]

    Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging51(2), 635–643 (2020)

    Zhang, L., Mohamed, A.A., Chai, R., Guo, Y., Zheng, B., Wu, S.: Automated deep learning method for whole-breast segmentation in diffusion-weighted breast mri. Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging51(2), 635–643 (2020)

    2020

  21. [29]

    Advances in neural information processing systems35, 38629–38642 (2022)

    Zhang, M., Levine, S., Finn, C.: Memo: Test time robustness via adaptation and augmentation. Advances in neural information processing systems35, 38629–38642 (2022)

    2022

Pith tools

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