Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 23 references

RefineSeg: Dual Coarse-to-Fine Learning for Medical Image Segmentation

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that training a U-Net on only coarse target and complementary drawings, with per-pixel transition matrices modeling the label noise, yields cardiac MRI segmentations that surpass other weakly supervised methods and…

desk verdict A plausible weak-supervision method with a real empirical gain, but the paper's central mechanistic claim is undersupported and needs substantial strengthening. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.02844 v1 pith:ZPMSOYLO submitted 2025-08-04 cs.CV

Anghong Du , Nay Aung , Theodoros N. Arvanitis , Stefan K. Piechnik , Joao A C Lima , Steffen E. Petersen , Le Zhang This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CV
keywords medicalimagesegmentationweaklysupervisedlearningcoarselabeltransitionmatrixcomplementarylabelscardiacMRIU-Netnoise
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 pixel-level medical image segmentation can be trained from coarse annotations alone, without any fine-grained ground-truth masks. Its framework uses per-pixel transition matrices to model the noise in both 'target' and 'complementary' coarse drawings, and a joint loss that progressively refines the output toward the true segmentation distribution. If the claim holds, expert-level annotation could be replaced by cheaper rough drawings made by non-experts, lowering the barrier to large-scale medical segmentation. On ACDC and MSCMRseg cardiac MRI data, the method reports average Dice scores of 0.901 and 0.852, close to the 0.920 and 0.902 achieved by a fully supervised nnU-Net.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the pixel-wise transition matrix $T^{(r)}_{uv}$, whose entry $T^{(r)}_{uv,mk}$ is the probability that the true class $k$ appears as coarse class $m$ at pixel $(u,v)$ under annotation strategy $r$; it converts the predicted fine label distribution into the coarse label distribution that is compared with the observed coarse labels. The network learns these matrices jointly with the segmentation, using a positive-channel loss that supervises only pixels inside the coarse positive regions and a negative-channel loss that aligns the coarse prediction via the transposed transition matrix. A Frobenius-norm regularization term $\sum_i \|T^{(t_i)} - I\|_F^2$ keeps the positive transition matrices near the identity, which the paper argues preserves structural integrity while still allowing refinement.

What would settle it

On synthetic images with known per-pixel transition matrices, train the framework using only coarse labels generated from those matrices, then compare the learned matrices with the ground-truth ones; the central claim is falsified if the matrices are not recovered even when the predicted segmentations are accurate.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that jointly optimizing two annotation-specific transition matrices—one mapping the true label distribution to positive coarse labels and one to complementary (negative) coarse labels—lets a U-Net recover fine segmentation masks from coarse-only supervision. Each image gets its own pixel-wise transition matrix, and the matrices are regularized toward identity to stop them from absorbing all the learning signal. Trained with a hybrid cross-entropy and Dice partial loss on annotated pixels for the positive channel and a transposed-matrix alignment for the negative channel, the model reaches average Dice scores of 0.901 on ACDC and 0.852 on MSCMRseg, surpassing prior weakly supervised methods and approaching full supervision.

Load-bearing premise

The framework assumes that per-pixel transition matrices, regularized only toward the identity, can recover the true segmentation distribution from coarse target and complementary labels without any fine-grained supervision.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If coarse target and complementary drawings suffice, the cost of annotating cardiac MRI drops from expert pixel-level tracing to rough boundary drawing that non-experts can perform.
  • The method outperforms current weakly supervised baselines, including scribble-based ScribFormer and CycleMix, on both ACDC and MSCMRseg, and its gap to full supervision is small (1.9 points of average Dice on ACDC, 5.0 on MSCMRseg).
  • The work provides the first weakly supervised versus fully supervised benchmark on UK Biobank, giving downstream cardiac studies a reference point for what coarse-label training can achieve.
  • Because the whole pipeline trains end-to-end from coarse labels only, the same loss could be applied to roughly labeled institutional data, potentially enabling large medical segmentation models to be trained with minimal manual labeling effort.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension the paper leaves unexplored is whether the identity regularization alone is sufficient; replacing it with a learned prior or per-class constraints could be tested on datasets where the annotation noise is spatially biased.
  • The coarse labels on ACDC and MSCMRseg are produced by eroding ground-truth masks, so the noise is spatially uniform; real non-expert coarse drawings may violate this structure, and the framework's robustness to such mismatch is a testable open question.
  • If the transition matrices are identifiable in practice, the method could be iterated: refine coarse labels with a first pass, then retrain on the refined labels, turning the coarse-to-fine learning into a self-training loop.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes RefineSeg, a weakly supervised segmentation framework that trains a 2D U-Net from coarse positive (target) and complementary (negative) annotations. The method introduces per-pixel, per-image transition matrices to model annotation noise, an identity regularization term on the positive transition matrices, and a joint loss combining positive and negative cross-entropy/Dice terms. The authors evaluate on ACDC, MSCMRseg, and UK Biobank, reporting average Dice values of 0.901 and 0.852 on the first two datasets, which they interpret as surpassing existing weakly supervised methods and approaching fully supervised nnU-Net (0.920 and 0.902). The central mechanistic claim is that simultaneous training on both coarse channels 'infers the true segmentation distribution' through the transition-matrix formulation.

Significance. If the empirical results withstand scrutiny, the contribution is relevant: it offers a fully weakly supervised pipeline that uses only coarse target and complementary annotations, which are cheaper to obtain than pixel-level masks, and it releases code. The reported Dice numbers on ACDC and MSCMRseg are competitive with stronger supervision. However, the paper's mechanistic claim about inferring the true segmentation distribution is not currently backed by identifiability analysis, synthetic validation, or ablations of the transition-matrix mechanism. The statistical evidence is also incomplete: no standard deviations, confidence intervals, or p-values are reported despite a strong statistical claim in Table 1. The significance paragraph is therefore conditional on the authors addressing these load-bearing gaps.

major comments (4)
  1. [Table 1 / Section 3.2] The table footnote claims that bold results are statistically better than other methods at p<0.01 by paired t-tests, but no p-values, standard deviations, or confidence intervals are reported anywhere. In addition, the comparisons with ScribFormer and CycleMix appear to use numbers reported in those original papers rather than re-running those methods under the same 80/20 split and U-Net backbone. Since the headline claim is 'surpasses the state-of-the-art weakly supervised methods,' please report per-class Dice as mean±std, provide the actual paired p-values for the key comparisons, and either retrain all baselines under the identical protocol or state clearly which numbers are transferred from the original publications.
  2. [Section 2.4, Eqs. (7)-(8)] The load-bearing premise that the identity regularizer forces the per-pixel, per-image transition matrices T^(t_i) to represent annotator noise rather than to absorb the segmentation signal is not established. Because T is independent per pixel and per image and the loss in Eq. (8) is minimized jointly over p and T, many (p, T) decompositions can fit the observed coarse labels; the identity regularization only biases the solution. No identifiability analysis, no synthetic experiment with known transition matrices, and no ablation with T fixed to identity is provided. Please add such experiments, or explicitly weaken the claim from 'infers the true segmentation distribution' to 'learns a useful refinement under the imposed regularization.'
  3. [Section 2.3, Eqs. (5)-(6) and Eq. (7)] The negative-channel formulation is under-specified and appears unregularized. The notation switches between T and T^(c_i), and q_n is never defined. More importantly, L_reg in Eq. (7) regularizes only T^(t_i), not the matrices used in the negative channel in Eq. (6). If the negative-channel transition matrices are independent and unregularized, the degeneracy concern in the previous comment is amplified. Please define all variables, clarify the relationship between T and T^(c_i), and either regularize both channels or justify why the negative channel needs no regularization.
  4. [Section 3.3] The UK Biobank evaluation, which is highlighted in the abstract and in Section 1 as a contribution, is presented only through qualitative figures (Figures 3 and 4). No Dice numbers are given for UKBB. Since the paper claims to provide the first weakly supervised benchmark on this dataset, a quantitative table with per-class Dice, averages, and standard deviations is necessary.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3.1] For ACDC and MSCMRseg, the coarse annotations are generated by eroding ground-truth masks; this is not equivalent to real non-expert coarse drawings. Please discuss how this may affect the external validity of the results, and clarify how the manually annotated UKBB coarse labels were verified.
  2. [Section 2.2, Eq. (2)] The displayed values of the weight parameters α_i, β_i, and λ are not legible in the manuscript (the symbols appear as blank placeholders). Please state these hyperparameters explicitly in the text.
  3. [Section 2.1, Eq. (1)] Please specify whether the transition matrices are column-stochastic or row-stochastic and whether any non-negativity or column-sum constraints are imposed, since this matters for the probabilistic interpretation of Eq. (1).
  4. [Section 3.2 / Table 1] There is a small numerical inconsistency: the text reports an average Dice of 0.902 for the proposed method on ACDC, while Table 1 lists 0.901. Please correct this.
  5. [References] References [5] and [6] appear to be the same Bayeseg paper; please deduplicate and update the citation list.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the reported Dice improvements are measured against held-out ground-truth labels, and the transition-matrix objective is a modeling assumption rather than a quantity defined by its own outputs.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is the joint objective in Eq. 8, which optimizes a predicted segmentation distribution p_n and per-pixel transition matrices T^(t_i) against observed coarse labels. This is a latent-variable model, not a construction in which the predicted quantity is defined in terms of the target quantity. The positive and negative losses (Eqs. 2-6) compare transformed predictions with coarse annotations, and the identity regularization (Eq. 7) is an added prior; while the optimization may be underdetermined, that is an identifiability and correctness concern, not circularity. The headline results are evaluated on held-out ACDC, MSCMRseg, and UK Biobank test images with independent ground-truth masks, so the experimental claims do not reduce to the training input. The paper cites the same author's prior work [22] for per-pixel transition matrices and negative-label learning, but it does not invoke [22] as an external uniqueness theorem or as the sole justification for its empirical success; the contribution is a combination with an identity regularizer and is benchmarked against external methods. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no equation is shown to be equivalent to its inputs by construction. The skeptical concern that transition matrices could absorb the segmentation signal is a legitimate robustness critique, but it is not a circularity in the paper's derivation chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The methodology rests on a small set of modeling assumptions inherited from prior work on noise-aware segmentation and complementary labels. No new physical or conceptual entities are introduced. The main unverified assumptions are the representativeness of eroded masks as coarse labels, the per-pixel conditional independence of annotation noise, and the sufficiency of identity regularization for identifiability.

free parameters (3)
  • Loss weights alpha_i, beta_i, and lambda = not legible in the rendered text; described as empirically set
    Equation (2) and Equation (8) weight the CE, Dice, and identity regularization terms. No sensitivity analysis is provided, and the values are chosen by hand.
  • Per-pixel, per-image transition matrices T^(r)_uv = learned from data
    Each pixel in each image gets an L by L transition matrix, a very large set of parameters fitted to the coarse labels. The identity regularization is introduced to prevent trivial solutions, but the decomposition into true labels and noise is not otherwise constrained.
  • Erosion parameters for generating coarse annotations = not specified
    For ACDC and MSCMRseg, coarse labels are produced by eroding ground-truth masks following [2], but the kernel size and amount of erosion are not reported. This affects the difficulty of the weakly supervised task.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Conditional independence of annotations at different pixels
    Equation (1) factorizes the probability of observed coarse labels per pixel, ignoring spatial correlation in annotation noise.
  • domain assumption Unannotated background regions in positive coarse labels are unreliable and can be ignored
    The partial loss in Equations (3) and (4) only supervises positive pixels, assuming that unannotated pixels carry no usable signal.
  • standard math The transition process is Markovian, with the current state depending only on the immediate previous state
    The paper cites [4] for the Markov chain foundation used to construct the transition matrices.
  • domain assumption Complementary labels relate to true labels through the transposed transition matrix
    Equations (5) and (6) define the complementary label distribution as the transposed transition matrix applied to the fine prediction, a linear relationship that is asserted rather than validated.
  • ad hoc to paper Identity regularization preserves structural integrity and prevents trivial mappings
    Equation (7) is added to stabilize optimization, but the paper provides no theoretical guarantee that the regularized solution recovers the true segmentation distribution.
  • domain assumption Eroded ground-truth masks are representative of real coarse annotations
    Used for ACDC and MSCMRseg evaluation; no user study or analysis is provided to show that simulated erosion matches how non-experts would draw coarse labels.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of RefineSeg: Dual Coarse-to-Fine Learning for Medical Image Segmentation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZPMSOYLO

@misc{pith2026250802844,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: RefineSeg: Dual Coarse-to-Fine Learning for Medical Image Segmentation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZPMSOYLO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.02844}
}
read the original abstract

High-quality pixel-level annotations of medical images are essential for supervised segmentation tasks, but obtaining such annotations is costly and requires medical expertise. To address this challenge, we propose a novel coarse-to-fine segmentation framework that relies entirely on coarse-level annotations, encompassing both target and complementary drawings, despite their inherent noise. The framework works by introducing transition matrices in order to model the inaccurate and incomplete regions in the coarse annotations. By jointly training on multiple sets of coarse annotations, it progressively refines the network's outputs and infers the true segmentation distribution, achieving a robust approximation of precise labels through matrix-based modeling. To validate the flexibility and effectiveness of the proposed method, we demonstrate the results on two public cardiac imaging datasets, ACDC and MSCMRseg, and further evaluate its performance on the UK Biobank dataset. Experimental results indicate that our approach surpasses the state-of-the-art weakly supervised methods and closely matches the fully supervised approach.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

23 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Bernard, O., Lalande, A., Zotti, C., Cervenansky, F., Yang, X., Heng, P.A., Cetin, I., Lekadir, K., Camara, O., Ballester, M.A.G., et al.: Deep learning techniques for automatic mri cardiac multi-structures segmentation and diagnosis: is the problem solved? IEEE transactions on medical imaging37(11), 2514–2525 (2018)

    2018

  2. [2]

    Journal of Machine Learning Research 20(178), 1–29 (2019)

    Castro, D.C., Tan, J., Kainz, B., Konukoglu, E., Glocker, B.: Morpho-mnist: Quan- titative assessment and diagnostics for representation learning. Journal of Machine Learning Research 20(178), 1–29 (2019)

    2019

  3. [3]

    Medical Image Analysis (2025)

    Deng, R., Yao, T., Tang, Y., Guo, J., Lu, S., Xiong, J., Yu, L., Cap, Q.H., Cai, P., Lan, L., et al.: Kpis 2024 challenge: Advancing glomerular segmentation from patch-to slide-level. Medical Image Analysis (2025)

    2025

  4. [4]

    John Wiley & Sons (2017)

    Gagniuc, P.A.: Markov chains: from theory to implementation and experimenta- tion. John Wiley & Sons (2017)

    2017

  5. [6]

    Medical Image Analysis 89, 102889 (2023)

    Gao, S., Zhou, H., Gao, Y., Zhuang, X.: Bayeseg: Bayesian modeling for medical image segmentation with interpretable generalizability. Medical Image Analysis 89, 102889 (2023)

    2023

  6. [7]

    Advances in Neural In- formation Processing Systems34, 12454–12465 (2021)

    Hoogeboom, E., Nielsen, D., Jaini, P., Forré, P., Welling, M.: Argmax flows and multinomial diffusion: Learning categorical distributions. Advances in Neural In- formation Processing Systems34, 12454–12465 (2021)

    2021

  7. [8]

    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

  8. [9]

    In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recog- nition

    Kim, B., Jeong, J., Han, D., Hwang, S.J.: The devil is in the points: Weakly semi-supervised instance segmentation via point-guided mask representation. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recog- nition. pp. 11360–11370 (2023) 10 A. Du et al

    2023

Show all 23 references
  1. [10]

    IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging (2024)

    Li, Z., Zheng, Y., Shan, D., Yang, S., Li, Q., Wang, B., Zhang, Y., Hong, Q., Shen, D.: Scribformer: Transformer makes cnn work better for scribble-based medical image segmentation. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging (2024)

    2024

  2. [11]

    Nature Communications15(1), 654 (2024)

    Ma, J., He, Y., Li, F., Han, L., You, C., Wang, B.: Segment anything in medical images. Nature Communications15(1), 654 (2024)

    2024

  3. [12]

    In: Medical image computing and computer-assisted intervention–MICCAI 2015: 18th international conference, Munich, Germany, Oc- tober 5-9, 2015, proceedings, part III 18

    Ronneberger, O., Fischer, P., Brox, T.: U-net: Convolutional networks for biomed- ical image segmentation. In: Medical image computing and computer-assisted intervention–MICCAI 2015: 18th international conference, Munich, Germany, Oc- tober 5-9, 2015, proceedings, part III 18....

    2015

  4. [13]

    PLoS medicine 12(3), e1001779 (2015)

    Sudlow, C., Gallacher, J., Allen, N., Beral, V., Burton, P., Danesh, J., Downey, P., Elliott, P., Green, J., Landray, M., et al.: Uk biobank: an open access resource for identifying the causes of a wide range of complex diseases of middle and old age. PLoS medicine 12(3), e100...

    2015

  5. [14]

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

    Tian, Z., Shen, C., Wang, X., Chen, H.: Boxinst: High-performance instance seg- mentation with box annotations. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. pp. 5443–5452 (2021)

    2021

  6. [15]

    IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging 40(8), 1990–2001 (2021)

    Valvano, G., Leo, A., Tsaftaris, S.A.: Learning to segment from scribbles using multi-scale adversarial attention gates. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging 40(8), 1990–2001 (2021)

    2021

  7. [16]

    IEEE transactions on medical imaging41(12), 3952–3968 (2022)

    Wang, Z., Saoud, C., Wangsiricharoen, S., James, A.W., Popel, A.S., Sulam, J.: Label cleaning multiple instance learning: Refining coarse annotations on sin- gle whole-slide images. IEEE transactions on medical imaging41(12), 3952–3968 (2022)

    2022

  8. [17]

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

    Wei, J., Hu, Y., Cui, S., Zhou, S.K., Li, Z.: Weakpolyp: You only look bounding box for polyp segmentation. In: International Conference on Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention. pp. 757–766. Springer (2023)

    2023

  9. [18]

    In: International conference on machine learning

    Wen, H., Cui, J., Hang, H., Liu, J., Wang, Y., Lin, Z.: Leveraged weighted loss for partial label learning. In: International conference on machine learning. pp. 11091–11100. PMLR (2021)

    2021

  10. [19]

    In: Proceedings of the European conference on computer vision (ECCV)

    Yu, X., Liu, T., Gong, M., Tao, D.: Learning with biased complementary labels. In: Proceedings of the European conference on computer vision (ECCV). pp. 68–83 (2018)

    2018

  11. [20]

    IEEE transactions on medical imaging42(8), 2235– 2246 (2023)

    Zhai, S., Wang, G., Luo, X., Yue, Q., Li, K., Zhang, S.: Pa-seg: Learning from point annotations for 3d medical image segmentation using contextual regularization and cross knowledge distillation. IEEE transactions on medical imaging42(8), 2235– 2246 (2023)

    2023

  12. [21]

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

    Zhang, K., Zhuang, X.: Cyclemix: A holistic strategy for medical image segmen- tation from scribble supervision. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. pp. 11656–11665 (2022)

    2022

  13. [22]

    Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems33, 15750– 15762 (2020)

    Zhang, L., Tanno, R., Xu, M.C., Jin, C., Jacob, J., Cicarrelli, O., Barkhof, F., Alexander, D.: Disentangling human error from ground truth in segmentation of medical images. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems33, 15750– 15762 (2020)

    2020

  14. [23]

    IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics (2025)

    Zhang, L., Wu, F., Bronik, K., Papiez, B.W.: Diffuseg: Domain-driven diffusion for medical image segmentation. IEEE Journal of Biomedical and Health Informatics (2025)

    2025

  15. [24]

    IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelli- gence 41(12), 2933–2946 (2018)

    Zhuang, X.: Multivariate mixture model for myocardial segmentation combining multi-source images. IEEE transactions on pattern analysis and machine intelli- gence 41(12), 2933–2946 (2018)

    2018

Pith tools

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