Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 111 references

The paper claims a multimodal MRI-plus-clinical model can predict early brain-tumor recurrence after resection, with XGBoost reaching a C-index of 0.782.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

XGBoost combining MRI radiomics and clinical biomarkers reportedly reaches C-index 0.782 for early brain tumor recurrence, but the paper's methods describe a liver-cancer cohort and no evaluation of its claimed temporal module appears.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-05 challenge →

load-bearing objection The Methods describe an HCC cohort while the Results report brain tumors; the internal inconsistency makes every performance claim uninterpretable. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2509.01161 v1 pith:L3Z4C25R submitted 2025-09-01 cs.LG

Multi-Modal Machine Learning Framework for Predicting Early Recurrence of Brain Tumors Using MRI and Clinical Biomarkers

Cheng Cheng , Zeping Chen , Rui Xie , Peiyao Zheng , Xavier Wang This is my paper
classification cs.LG
keywords brain tumor recurrenceradiomicsMRIXGBoostsurvival analysisclinical biomarkersrisk stratificationmultimodal machine learning
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

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 sets out to show that combining structural MRI radiomic features with clinical and molecular biomarkers improves early recurrence prediction for high-grade brain tumors after surgery. It trains four survival models on a multi-modal feature set and reports that XGBoost performs best, with a concordance index of 0.782 and 1- and 2-year AUCs of 0.804 and 0.767. It further reports that the model separates patients into high- and low-risk groups with median recurrence-free survival of 9.6 versus 21.2 months (log-rank p < 0.001). If these results hold, the model would be a directly usable risk-stratification aid for follow-up planning. The reader should note that the Methods and Results sections describe different tumor populations, an issue flagged in the inferences below.

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's central claim is that a multi-modal feature vector—107 IBSI-compliant radiomic features extracted from preoperative structural MRI plus clinical and molecular variables such as MGMT methylation, IDH1/2 status, Ki-67, tumor size and resection type—carries enough signal to rank patients by recurrence risk. XGBoost trained with the Cox partial likelihood achieves the best discrimination; calibration curves and decision-curve analysis are claimed to favor it over RSF, CoxBoost and GBM. SHAP analysis names MGMT methylation, GLCM entropy and Ki-67 as the top contributors, and median-score splitting yields a statistically significant survival separation.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the multi-modal feature vector combined with survival-loss training: Cox partial likelihood for XGBoost and CoxBoost, log-rank splitting and cumulative-hazard averaging for RSF, and boosting for GBM. The paper also describes a temporal encoding module that applies positional encoding and self-attention to follow-up snapshots, intended to replace the static risk score with a dynamically learned one. Evaluation uses C-index, time-dependent AUC, calibration curves, Brier scores, and decision-curve net benefit.

Load-bearing premise

That the 186 patients described in the Results (glioblastoma and anaplastic astrocytoma) are the same patients whose enrollment, imaging protocol, and follow-up are described in Section 3 (liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma); the manuscript never reconciles these descriptions.

What would settle it

Pull the institutional cohort list behind Section 3.1: if the 186 patients underwent hepatic resection with liver MRI and AFP surveillance, the reported brain-tumor recurrence times and C-index cannot be produced from them. Short of that, a reader can test the out-of-sample claim by checking whether any patient was held out before model selection; the Methods only mention internal cross-validation.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • If the XGBoost result generalizes, clinicians could use the risk score to schedule more intensive surveillance for high-risk patients (median RFS 9.6 months) and less frequent follow-up for low-risk patients.
  • The model targets the two-year window after surgery, which is the clinically urgent period for early recurrence, rather than only overall survival.
  • The reported feature rankings give a short list of routinely collected variables—MGMT methylation, IDH1 status, Ki-67, GLCM entropy—that could guide future data collection and model-building.
  • If confirmed, the performance comparison would position XGBoost as the default estimator among the four tested algorithms for this type of radiomic-plus-clinical fusion.
  • The reported calibration and net-benefit results, if valid, would support deployment as a decision-support tool in postoperative follow-up planning.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The strongest check is cohort identity: Section 3.1 describes patients who underwent hepatic resection for hepatocellular carcinoma, with liver MRI and alpha-fetoprotein surveillance, while Section 5.1 reports glioblastoma and anaplastic astrocytoma outcomes. If the Methods text describes the actual cohort, the brain-tumor results cannot be reproduced from it; if it is stale template text, the rep
  • The evaluation may be in-sample: the model section mentions optimizing hyperparameters by internal cross-validation but does not state a held-out test set; metrics computed on training data would overstate discrimination.
  • Section 7's 'immunological clustering' uses simulated immune enrichment scores, so the radiomic-intensity associations with immune clusters are illustrative rather than evidence-based.
  • The paper itself lists retrospective single-center design, moderate sample size, and lack of external validation as limitations; these would likely compress the reported C-index in a genuinely unseen cohort, making a multi-institutional test the natural next step.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a multi-modal machine learning framework that integrates MRI radiomic features with clinical and molecular biomarkers to predict early recurrence in high-grade brain tumors. It reports XGBoost as the best model with C-index 0.782, 1-year AUC 0.804, and 2-year AUC 0.767 (Table 1), plus Kaplan-Meier risk stratification with median RFS 9.6 vs. 21.2 months (log-rank p < 0.001), SHAP feature importance, calibration, and decision curve analysis. The central claim is that this framework is a usable risk-stratification tool. However, the Methods describe a hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) cohort with liver MRI protocols and alpha-fetoprotein surveillance, while the Results report glioblastoma and anaplastic astrocytoma patients with MGMT/IDH/Ki-67 markers. Sections 5 and 6 duplicate results and disagree on the number of evaluated models. The risk-stratification analysis uses the median in-sample predicted score from the same cohort used for feature selection and training, making the survival separation largely a restatement of model fit. These issues leave the central claim unsupported.

Significance. If the reported results were valid and properly evaluated, the framework could be a practically useful tool for postoperative brain tumor risk stratification, because it combines easily available MRI and clinical markers, uses standard survival metrics, and provides interpretability via SHAP. The paper also includes algorithmic pseudocode and a clear experimental setup in principle. However, the significance cannot be assessed from the manuscript as written: the cohort mismatch and the duplication/inconsistency between the two Results sections mean that the reported performance numbers cannot be attributed to a well-defined study population or evaluation protocol. The in-sample survival stratification further undermines the predictive claim. The work therefore does not currently make a sound contribution to the literature.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.1 vs. Section 5.1] The study population is described as patients who underwent curative-intent hepatic resection for suspected hepatocellular carcinoma, with liver MRI protocols in Section 3.2 and alpha-fetoprotein surveillance in Section 3.3. Yet Section 5.1 reports 186 patients with glioblastoma (65.6%) and anaplastic astrocytoma (34.4%), with molecular biomarkers MGMT, IDH1/2, and Ki-67 that are not part of HCC standard care. No passage reconciles this discrepancy. If the Methods do not describe the cohort actually analyzed, then all reported metrics in Tables 1-5 and Figures 2-3 are not attributable to the described study, and the central claim is unsupported. This is an internal inconsistency, not a minor presentation issue.
  2. [Sections 5 and 6] The two Results sections duplicate each other but do not agree on the evaluated models. Section 5.3, Table 1 reports four models (XGBoost, CoxBoost, RSF, GBM), while Section 6.1 states that six models were compared, including CoxPH and CNN-based unimodal baselines; Table 3 also includes CoxPH. The text in Section 5.4 also refers to calibration for 'XGBoost and RSF' without mentioning the other models. No details are given for the CNN baseline, the training/validation splits, or the internal cross-validation procedure mentioned in Algorithm 1. This inconsistency makes it impossible to know which model set generated the reported numbers and prevents any reproducibility assessment.
  3. [Sections 5.5 and 6.3, Algorithm 1 steps 16-17] Patients are stratified into high- and low-risk groups based on the median XGBoost predicted recurrence score, and Kaplan-Meier analysis is then performed on the same cohort that was used for univariate Cox feature selection (step 2 of Algorithm 1) and model training. The reported log-rank p < 0.001 and median RFS difference of 9.6 vs. 21.2 months therefore reflect in-sample discrimination rather than an out-of-sample validation of the risk-stratification tool. A proper evaluation would require a held-out test set or nested cross-validation, and ideally an independent cohort, before such survival separation can be claimed as predictive evidence.
  4. [Section 3.4, Section 7] The temporal self-attention framework described in Section 3.4 (z(t) = SelfAttn(x(t) + PE(t))) is not used in Algorithm 1, in the model training description, or in any reported result. The Discussion in Section 8 even admits the 'time-series representation was relatively shallow,' contradicting the claimed temporal modeling component. Similarly, Section 7 introduces six immunological clusters based on 'simulated immune cell enrichment scores' and radiomic intensity distributions, but these analyses are not connected to the recurrence prediction cohort, are not mentioned in the Abstract or Introduction, and appear to be exploratory simulations rather than results from the study data. These disconnected components should either be integrated or removed.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Throughout] The manuscript contains placeholders such as '[Institution Name]' in Section 3.1 and '[software name]' in Section 3.2. These must be filled before any submission.
  2. [Figure 3 caption] The caption reads 'Kapian-Meier' instead of 'Kaplan-Meier'; please correct the typo.
  3. [References] References [1]-[68] are almost entirely unrelated to brain tumors, HCC, or imaging; they appear to be a large block of self-citations or topic-diverse citations. This is inappropriate and should be replaced with relevant literature.
  4. [Section 5 vs. Section 6] Having two 'Results' sections with overlapping content is confusing. They should be merged into one coherent Results section, with a single set of tables and figures.
  5. [Section 5.2] The feature selection result mentions 'GLSZM zone variance' but the methods in Section 3.2 only list GLCM and GLRLM texture features; please clarify whether GLSZM was included in the 107 features.
  6. [Section 7.1] The text refers to 'three identified immunological clusters' while Section 7 describes six clusters. This inconsistency needs to be resolved.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged

Risk stratification and log-rank separation are computed on the model's own training data, with outcome-informed feature selection; the reported discrimination is an in-sample restatement.

specific steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Algorithm 1, step 2 (Feature Selection); Section 5.2]
    "F eature Selection: • Perform univariate Cox regression on all features • Retain features with p <0.05 • Remove multicollinear features (GVIF > 5)"

    This step selects features using the recurrence outcome over the entire cohort before any model is trained. Because the same outcome is later used to train XGBoost and to compute the reported C-index/AUC, the feature set is already outcome-informed. The evaluation metrics therefore do not measure an independent predictive derivation; they reflect a model built from variables chosen by their association with the very endpoint being predicted.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section 5.5 (also 6.3); Algorithm 1, steps 16-18]
    "Patients were stratified into high- and low-risk groups based on the median predicted recurrence score from the XGBoost model. Kaplan–Meier analysis demonstrated a statistically significant separation between the two groups (p < 0.001, log-rank test), with the high-risk group exhibiting a median RFS of 9.6 months versus 21.2 months in the low-risk group."

    The risk score is produced by a model trained on the same patients whose RFS is then used in the log-rank test; the median split is applied to these in-sample predictions. The reported p<0.001 and median RFS contrast therefore restate the model's fit to the training data rather than an out-of-sample prediction. Splitting a model's own fitted scores at the median and testing survival differences on the same cohort is statistically forced: a model fit to the endpoint can separate its own training cases by construction.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not self-citation dependent: there are no load-bearing self-citations, imported uniqueness theorems, or ansatz smuggled in by citation. The circularity lies in the evaluation and stratification loop. Algorithm 1 performs univariate Cox feature selection on the full dataset, training models on the selected features and using internal cross-validation only after selection. This leaks outcome information into feature selection, so the reported C-index and AUC are not independent out-of-sample estimates. The clearest circular step is the Kaplan-Meier stratification in Sections 5.5 and 6.3: patients are split by the median risk score from an XGBoost model fitted to the same cohort, and the resulting log-rank p<0.001 is presented as demonstration of predictive separation. That separation is an in-sample description of the fitted model, not a validation of prediction. Separately, Sections 3.1-3.3 describe an HCC cohort with liver MRI, alpha-fetoprotein surveillance, and HCC references, while Section 5.1 reports glioblastoma and anaplastic astrocytoma patients; this is an internal-consistency defect that makes all reported metrics uninterpretable, but it is a correctness and reproducibility risk rather than a circular derivation. The overall score is 6 because one or more 'predictions' reduce by construction to in-sample fit and outcome-informed feature selection, even though no self-citation circularity is present.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 5 axioms · 2 invented entities

The central claim rests on an unresolved contradiction between the described cohort (HCC, Section 3.1) and the analyzed cohort (brain tumors, Section 5.1), plus an unevaluated temporal module, simulated immune scores, and standard survival-model assumptions. The feature-selection threshold, stratification cutoff, and model hyperparameters are hand-set or unreported, and feature selection is applied to the full cohort.

free parameters (4)
  • Univariate Cox feature-selection threshold (p < 0.05) = 0.05
    Algorithm 1 step 2 selects the 13 features entering every model; the threshold is chosen without multiple-testing correction and applied to the full cohort, leaking outcome information into feature choice.
  • Multicollinearity cutoff (GVIF > 5) = 5
    Algorithm 1 step 2 removes collinear features; the cutoff is a hand-set tolerance that changes the final feature set.
  • Risk-stratification cutoff (median predicted score) = median of XGBoost risk scores
    Sections 5.5 and 6.3 split patients into high/low risk at the median; the reported KM separation (log-rank p < 0.001) depends on this in-sample cutoff.
  • Model hyperparameters (tree count, learning rate, shrinkage, mtry) = not reported
    Section 4 says hyperparameters were optimized via internal cross-validation, but no grid, final values, or resampling scheme is given for GBM, RSF, CoxBoost, or XGBoost.
axioms (5)
  • ad hoc to paper The population described in the Methods (HCC patients after hepatic resection, Section 3.1) is the population whose results are reported (glioblastoma and anaplastic astrocytoma, Section 5.1)
    All inclusion/exclusion criteria, liver MRI acquisition (Section 3.2), alpha-fetoprotein surveillance (Section 3.3), and supporting references [104,106,107] describe hepatocellular carcinoma, while the Results describe brain tumors. No reconciliation is provided.
  • domain assumption Cox proportional hazards assumption holds for all selected features
    Section 3.4 uses the Cox partial likelihood for CoxBoost and XGBoost; no proportional-hazards diagnostics are reported.
  • domain assumption 107 IBSI radiomic features extracted from segmented MRI are reproducible and carry prognostic signal in this 186-patient cohort
    Section 3.2 and Algorithm 1 step 1 assume standardized feature extraction, though the cited imaging protocol [104] is a liver MRI protocol.
  • ad hoc to paper The temporal self-attention encoder of Section 3.4 is part of the evaluated framework
    The encoder is defined but absent from Algorithm 1, Table 1, and all reported results; the abstract nonetheless credits time-aware modeling with contributing to performance.
  • ad hoc to paper Simulated immune cell enrichment scores represent the real tumor immune microenvironment
    Section 7 states clustering used simulated immune cell enrichment scores but provides no measurement basis or validation for these scores.
invented entities (2)
  • Six immunological clusters (Cluster1-Up through Cluster3-Down) no independent evidence
    purpose: Stratify patients into immune-phenotype groups from simulated enrichment scores and link them to radiomic intensity distributions
    Section 7 derives these clusters from simulated scores with no described data source, no validation, and no survival association; Figure 4 shows six clusters while Section 7.1 analyzes three.
  • Temporal encoder z(t) = SelfAttn(x(t) + PE(t)) with positional encoding no independent evidence
    purpose: Claimed time-aware risk scoring f_temporal(x1:T) as a replacement for static f(x)
    Defined in Section 3.4 but never instantiated in the trained models, so it has no falsifiable output in this paper.

reviewed 2026-08-05 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Multi-Modal Machine Learning Framework for Predicting Early Recurrence of Brain Tumors Using MRI and Clinical Biomarkers." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/L3Z4C25R

@misc{pith2026250901161,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Multi-Modal Machine Learning Framework for Predicting Early Recurrence of Brain Tumors Using MRI and Clinical Biomarkers},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/L3Z4C25R}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.01161}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Accurately predicting early recurrence in brain tumor patients following surgical resection remains a clinical challenge. This study proposes a multi-modal machine learning framework that integrates structural MRI features with clinical biomarkers to improve postoperative recurrence prediction. We employ four machine learning algorithms -- Gradient Boosting Machine (GBM), Random Survival Forest (RSF), CoxBoost, and XGBoost -- and validate model performance using concordance index (C-index), time-dependent AUC, calibration curves, and decision curve analysis. Our model demonstrates promising performance, offering a potential tool for risk stratification and personalized follow-up planning.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.01161 by Cheng cheng, Peiyao Zheng, Rui Xie, Xavier Wang, Zeping Chen.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Algorithmic Flow Overview 5 Results 5.1 Baseline Characteristics A total of 186 patients were included in the final cohort. The median age was 56 years (IQR: 47–63), with a male-to-female ratio of 1.2:1. Among the cohort, 122 (65.6%) were diagnosed with glioblastoma (WHO grade IV), and 64 (34.4%) with anaplastic astrocytoma (grade III). The median tumor diameter was 4.8 cm (range: 2.1–8.7 cm). MGMT promote… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Performance of machine learning models for recurrence prediction [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Kapian-Meier Analysis of Predicted Risk Groups [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Radar plots illustrating immune enrichment profiles across six representative [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: MRI intensity distribution curves across immunological clusters. Each plot shows [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_5.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

111 extracted references · 53 canonical work pages · 17 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    mplug-owl: Modularization em- 15 powers large language models with multimodality

    Qinghao Ye, Haiyang Xu, Guohai Xu, Jiabo Ye, Ming Yan, Yiyang Zhou, Junyang Wang, Anwen Hu, Pengcheng Shi, Yaya Shi, et al. mplug-owl: Modularization em- 15 powers large language models with multimodality. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.14178 , 2023

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  2. [2]

    Analyzing and mitigating object hallucination in large vision-language models

    Yiyang Zhou, Chenhang Cui, Jaehong Yoon, Linjun Zhang, Zhun Deng, Chelsea Finn, Mohit Bansal, and Huaxiu Yao. Analyzing and mitigating object hallucination in large vision-language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.00754 , 2023

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  3. [3]

    Evaluation and analysis of hallucination in large vision-language models

    Junyang Wang, Yiyang Zhou, Guohai Xu, Pengcheng Shi, Chenlin Zhao, Haiyang Xu, Qinghao Ye, Ming Yan, Ji Zhang, Jihua Zhu, et al. Evaluation and analysis of hallucination in large vision-language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.15126 , 2023

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  4. [4]

    Calibrated self- rewarding vision language models

    Yiyang Zhou, Zhiyuan Fan, Dongjie Cheng, Sihan Yang, Zhaorun Chen, Chen- hang Cui, Xiyao Wang, Yun Li, Linjun Zhang, and Huaxiu Yao. Calibrated self- rewarding vision language models. Advances in Neural Information Processing Sys- tems, 37:51503–51531, 2024

    2024

  5. [5]

    Anyprefer: An Agentic Framework for Preference Data Synthesis

    Yiyang Zhou, Zhaoyang Wang, Tianle Wang, Shangyu Xing, Peng Xia, Bo Li, Kaiyuan Zheng, Zijian Zhang, Zhaorun Chen, Wenhao Zheng, et al. Anyprefer: An agentic framework for preference data synthesis. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.19276 , 2025

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  6. [6]

    Lumina-mgpt 2.0: Stand-alone autoregressive image modeling

    Yi Xin, Juncheng Yan, Qi Qin, Zhen Li, Dongyang Liu, Shicheng Li, Victor Shea-Jay Huang, Yupeng Zhou, Renrui Zhang, Le Zhuo, et al. Lumina-mgpt 2.0: Stand-alone autoregressive image modeling. arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.17801 , 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  7. [7]

    Parameter-efficient fine-tuning for pre-trained vision models: A survey

    Yi Xin, Siqi Luo, Haodi Zhou, Junlong Du, Xiaohong Liu, Yue Fan, Qing Li, and Yuntao Du. Parameter-efficient fine-tuning for pre-trained vision models: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.02242 , 2024

    arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    V-petl bench: A unified visual parameter-efficient transfer learning benchmark

    Yi Xin, Siqi Luo, Xuyang Liu, Haodi Zhou, Xinyu Cheng, Christina E Lee, Junlong Du, Haozhe Wang, MingCai Chen, Ting Liu, et al. V-petl bench: A unified visual parameter-efficient transfer learning benchmark. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:80522–80535, 2024

    2024

  9. [9]

    Vmt-adapter: Parameter-efficient transfer learning for multi-task dense scene understanding

    Yi Xin, Junlong Du, Qiang Wang, Zhiwen Lin, and Ke Yan. Vmt-adapter: Parameter-efficient transfer learning for multi-task dense scene understanding. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , volume 38, pages 16085–16093, 2024

    2024

  10. [10]

    Mmap: Multi-modal alignment prompt for cross-domain multi-task learning

    Yi Xin, Junlong Du, Qiang Wang, Ke Yan, and Shouhong Ding. Mmap: Multi-modal alignment prompt for cross-domain multi-task learning. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , volume 38, pages 16076–16084, 2024. 16

    2024

  11. [11]

    Self-training with label-feature-consistency for domain adaptation

    Yi Xin, Siqi Luo, Pengsheng Jin, Yuntao Du, and Chongjun Wang. Self-training with label-feature-consistency for domain adaptation. In International Conference on Database Systems for Advanced Applications , pages 84–99. Springer, 2023

    2023

  12. [12]

    Lumina-image 2.0: A unified and efficient image generative framework

    Qi Qin, Le Zhuo, Yi Xin, Ruoyi Du, Zhen Li, Bin Fu, Yiting Lu, Jiakang Yuan, Xinyue Li, Dongyang Liu, et al. Lumina-image 2.0: A unified and efficient image generative framework. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.21758 , 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  13. [13]

    Towards understanding the work- ing mechanism of text-to-image diffusion model

    Mingyang Yi, Aoxue Li, Yi Xin, and Zhenguo Li. Towards understanding the work- ing mechanism of text-to-image diffusion model. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:55342–55369, 2024

    2024

  14. [14]

    Towards automated 3d evaluation of water leakage on a tunnel face via improved gan and self-attention dl model

    Chen Wu, Hongwei Huang, Le Zhang, Jiayao Chen, Yue Tong, and Mingliang Zhou. Towards automated 3d evaluation of water leakage on a tunnel face via improved gan and self-attention dl model. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology , 142:105432, 2023

    2023

  15. [15]

    Evaluation of tunnel rock mass integrity using multi-modal data and generative large model: Tunnel rip-gpt

    Chen Wu, Hongwei Huang, and Yi-Qing Ni. Evaluation of tunnel rock mass integrity using multi-modal data and generative large model: Tunnel rip-gpt. Available at SSRN 5348429 , 2025

    2025

  16. [16]

    A novel tree-augmented bayesian network for predicting rock weathering degree using in- complete dataset

    Chen Wu, Hongwei Huang, Jiayao Chen, Mingliang Zhou, and Shiju Han. A novel tree-augmented bayesian network for predicting rock weathering degree using in- complete dataset. International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences , 183:105933, 2024

    2024

  17. [17]

    Rock mass quality prediction on tunnel faces with incomplete multi-source dataset via tree-augmented naive bayesian network

    Hongwei Huang, Chen Wu, Mingliang Zhou, Jiayao Chen, Tianze Han, and Le Zhang. Rock mass quality prediction on tunnel faces with incomplete multi-source dataset via tree-augmented naive bayesian network. International Journal of Mining Science and Technology, 34(3):323–337, 2024

    2024

  18. [18]

    Rankelectra: Semi-supervised pre- training of learning-to-rank electra for web-scale search

    Yuchen Li, Haoyi Xiong, Yongqi Zhang, Jiang Bian, Tianhao Peng, Xuhong Li, Shuaiqiang Wang, Linghe Kong, and Dawei Yin. Rankelectra: Semi-supervised pre- training of learning-to-rank electra for web-scale search. In Proceedings of the 31st ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining V. 1 , pages 2415–2425, 2025

    2025

  19. [19]

    M2oerank: Multi- objective mixture-of-experts enhanced ranking for satisfaction-oriented web search

    Yuchen Li, Hao Zhang, Yongqi Zhang, Xinyu Ma, Wenwen Ye, Naifei Song, Shuaiqiang Wang, Haoyi Xiong, Dawei Yin, and Lei Chen. M2oerank: Multi- objective mixture-of-experts enhanced ranking for satisfaction-oriented web search. In 2025 IEEE 41st International Conference on Data Engineering (ICDE) , pages 4441–4454. IEEE Computer Society, 2025. 17

    2025

  20. [20]

    Towards ai search paradigm

    Yuchen Li, Hengyi Cai, Rui Kong, Xinran Chen, Jiamin Chen, Jun Yang, Haojie Zhang, Jiayi Li, Jiayi Wu, Yiqun Chen, et al. Towards ai search paradigm. arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.17188, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  21. [21]

    S2phere: Semi-supervised pre-training for web search over heterogeneous learning to rank data

    Yuchen Li, Haoyi Xiong, Linghe Kong, Qingzhong Wang, Shuaiqiang Wang, Guihai Chen, and Dawei Yin. S2phere: Semi-supervised pre-training for web search over heterogeneous learning to rank data. In Proceedings of the 29th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining , pages 4437–4448, 2023

    2023

  22. [22]

    Rankexpert: A mixture of textual-and- behavioral experts for multi-objective learning-to-rank in web search

    Yuchen Li, Hao Zhang, Yongqi Zhang, Hengyi Cai, Mingxin Cai, Shuaiqiang Wang, Haoyi Xiong, Dawei Yin, and Lei Chen. Rankexpert: A mixture of textual-and- behavioral experts for multi-objective learning-to-rank in web search. In Proceedings of the 31st ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining V. 2, pages 4437–4449, 2025

    2025

  23. [23]

    Coltr: Semi-supervised learning to rank with co-training and over-parameterization for web search

    Yuchen Li, Haoyi Xiong, Qingzhong Wang, Linghe Kong, Hao Liu, Haifang Li, Jiang Bian, Shuaiqiang Wang, Guihai Chen, Dejing Dou, et al. Coltr: Semi-supervised learning to rank with co-training and over-parameterization for web search. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering , 35(12):12542–12555, 2023

    2023

  24. [24]

    Mhrr: Moocs recommender service with meta hierarchical reinforced ranking

    Yuchen Li, Haoyi Xiong, Linghe Kong, Rui Zhang, Fanqin Xu, Guihai Chen, and Minglu Li. Mhrr: Moocs recommender service with meta hierarchical reinforced ranking. IEEE Transactions on Services Computing , 16(6):4467–4480, 2023

    2023

  25. [25]

    Fultr: A large-scale fusion learning to rank dataset and its application for satisfaction-oriented ranking

    Yuchen Li, Hao Zhang, Haojie Zhang, Hengyi Cai, Xinyu Ma, Shuaiqiang Wang, Haoyi Xiong, Zhaochun Ren, Maarten de Rijke, and Dawei Yin. Fultr: A large-scale fusion learning to rank dataset and its application for satisfaction-oriented ranking. In Proceedings of the 31st ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining V. 2 , pages 5583–5594, 2025

    2025

  26. [26]

    Rainy: Unlocking Satellite Calibration for Deep Learning in Precipitation

    Zhenyu Yu, Hanqing Chen, Mohd Yamani Idna Idris, and Pei Wang. Rainy: Unlocking satellite calibration for deep learning in precipitation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.10776, 2025

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  27. [27]

    A Diffusion-Based Framework for Terrain-Aware Remote Sensing Image Reconstruction

    Zhenyu Yu, Mohd Yamani Inda Idris, and Pei Wang. Satellitemaker: A diffusion- based framework for terrain-aware remote sensing image reconstruction. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.12112, 2025

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  28. [28]

    ForgetMe: Evaluating Selective Forgetting in Generative Models

    Zhenyu Yu, Mohd Yamani Inda Idris, and Pei Wang. Forgetme: Evaluating selective forgetting in generative models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.12574 , 2025

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  29. [29]

    SatelliteCalculator: A Multi-Task Vision Foundation Model for Quantitative Remote Sensing Inversion

    Zhenyu Yu, Mohd Idris, and Pei Wang. Satellitecalculator: A multi-task vi- sion foundation model for quantitative remote sensing inversion. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.13442, 2025. 18

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  30. [30]

    Dancetext: Point- driven interactive text and image layer editing using diffusion models

    Zhenyu Yu, Mohd Yamani Idna Idris, Pei Wang, and Yuelong Xia. Dancetext: Point- driven interactive text and image layer editing using diffusion models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.14108, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  31. [31]

    DC4CR: When Cloud Removal Meets Diffusion Control in Remote Sensing

    Zhenyu Yu, Mohd Yamani Idna Idris, and Pei Wang. Dc4cr: When cloud removal meets diffusion control in remote sensing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.14785 , 2025

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  32. [32]

    SatelliteFormula: Multi-Modal Symbolic Regression from Remote Sensing Imagery for Physics Discovery

    Zhenyu Yu, Mohd Idris, Pei Wang, Yuelong Xia, Fei Ma, Rizwan Qureshi, et al. Satelliteformula: Multi-modal symbolic regression from remote sensing imagery for physics discovery. arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.06176 , 2025

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  33. [33]

    From physics to foundation models: A review of ai-driven quantitative remote sensing inversion

    Zhenyu Yu, Mohd Yamani Idna Idris, Hua Wang, Pei Wang, Junyi Chen, and Kun Wang. From physics to foundation models: A review of ai-driven quantitative remote sensing inversion. arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.09081 , 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  34. [34]

    Estimating forest carbon stock using enhanced resnet and sentinel-2 imagery

    Jintong Ren, Lizhi Liu, You Wu, Lijian Ouyang, and Zhenyu Yu. Estimating forest carbon stock using enhanced resnet and sentinel-2 imagery. Forests (19994907) , 16(7), 2025

    2025

  35. [35]

    Reasoning in computer vision: Taxonomy, models, tasks, and methodologies

    Ayushman Sarkar, Mohd Yamani Idna Idris, and Zhenyu Yu. Reasoning in computer vision: Taxonomy, models, tasks, and methodologies. arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.10523, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  36. [36]

    Ft2tf: First-person statement text-to-talking face generation

    Xingjian Diao, Ming Cheng, Wayner Barrios, and SouYoung Jin. Ft2tf: First-person statement text-to-talking face generation. In Proceedings of the Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision (WACV) , pages 4821–4830, February 2025

    2025

  37. [37]

    Temporal working memory: Query- guided segment refinement for enhanced multimodal understanding

    Xingjian Diao, Chunhui Zhang, Weiyi Wu, Zhongyu Ouyang, Peijun Qing, Ming Cheng, Soroush Vosoughi, and Jiang Gui. Temporal working memory: Query- guided segment refinement for enhanced multimodal understanding. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.06020, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  38. [38]

    Learning Sparsity for Effective and Efficient Music Performance Question Answering

    Xingjian Diao, Tianzhen Yang, Chunhui Zhang, Weiyi Wu, Ming Cheng, and Jiang Gui. Learning sparsity for effective and efficient music performance question answer- ing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.01319 , 2025

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  39. [39]

    Learning musical representations for music performance question answering

    Xingjian Diao, Chunhui Zhang, Tingxuan Wu, Ming Cheng, Zhongyu Ouyang, Weiyi Wu, and Jiang Gui. Learning musical representations for music performance question answering. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2024, 2024

    2024

  40. [40]

    Soundmind: Rl-incentivized logic reasoning for audio-language models

    Xingjian Diao, Chunhui Zhang, Keyi Kong, Weiyi Wu, Chiyu Ma, Zhongyu Ouyang, Peijun Qing, Soroush Vosoughi, and Jiang Gui. Soundmind: Rl-incentivized logic reasoning for audio-language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.12935 , 2025. 19

    arXiv 2025

  41. [41]

    En- coder: Entity mining and modification relation binding for composed image retrieval

    Zixu Li, Zhiwei Chen, Haokun Wen, Zhiheng Fu, Yupeng Hu, and Weili Guan. En- coder: Entity mining and modification relation binding for composed image retrieval. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , volume 39, pages 5101–5109, 2025

    2025

  42. [42]

    Finecir: Explicit parsing of fine-grained modification semantics for composed image retrieval

    Zixu Li, Zhiheng Fu, Yupeng Hu, Zhiwei Chen, Haokun Wen, and Liqiang Nie. Finecir: Explicit parsing of fine-grained modification semantics for composed image retrieval. https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.21309, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  43. [43]

    Offset: Segmentation-based focus shift revision for composed image retrieval, 2025

    Zhiwei Chen, Yupeng Hu, Zixu Li, Zhiheng Fu, Xuemeng Song, and Liqiang Nie. Offset: Segmentation-based focus shift revision for composed image retrieval, 2025

    2025

  44. [44]

    Median: Adaptive intermediate-grained aggregation network for composed image retrieval

    Qinlei Huang, Zhiwei Chen, Zixu Li, Chunxiao Wang, Xuemeng Song, Yupeng Hu, and Liqiang Nie. Median: Adaptive intermediate-grained aggregation network for composed image retrieval. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing, pages 1–5. IEEE, 2025

    2025

  45. [45]

    Pair: Complementarity-guided disentanglement for composed image retrieval

    Zhiheng Fu, Zixu Li, Zhiwei Chen, Chunxiao Wang, Xuemeng Song, Yupeng Hu, and Liqiang Nie. Pair: Complementarity-guided disentanglement for composed image retrieval. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing, pages 1–5. IEEE, 2025

    2025

  46. [46]

    Jensen, Zhenli Sheng, and Bin Yang

    Xiangfei Qiu, Jilin Hu, Lekui Zhou, Xingjian Wu, Junyang Du, Buang Zhang, Chen- juan Guo, Aoying Zhou, Christian S. Jensen, Zhenli Sheng, and Bin Yang. TFB: Towards comprehensive and fair benchmarking of time series forecasting methods. In Proc. VLDB Endow. , pages 2363–2377, 2024

    2024

  47. [47]

    DUET: Dual clustering enhanced multivariate time series forecasting

    Xiangfei Qiu, Xingjian Wu, Yan Lin, Chenjuan Guo, Jilin Hu, and Bin Yang. DUET: Dual clustering enhanced multivariate time series forecasting. In SIGKDD, pages 1185–1196, 2025

    2025

  48. [48]

    Jensen, and Bin Yang

    Xiangfei Qiu, Zhe Li, Wanghui Qiu, Shiyan Hu, Lekui Zhou, Xingjian Wu, Zhengyu Li, Chenjuan Guo, Aoying Zhou, Zhenli Sheng, Jilin Hu, Christian S. Jensen, and Bin Yang. Tab: Unified benchmarking of time series anomaly detection methods. In Proc. VLDB Endow. , pages 2775–2789, 2025

    2025

  49. [49]

    Rgp: Neural network pruning through regular graph with edges swapping

    Zhuangzhi Chen, Jingyang Xiang, Yao Lu, Qi Xuan, Zhen Wang, Guanrong Chen, and Xiaoniu Yang. Rgp: Neural network pruning through regular graph with edges swapping. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems , 35(10):14671–14683, 2023

    2023

  50. [50]

    Understanding the dynamics of dnns using graph modularity

    Yao Lu, Wen Yang, Yunzhe Zhang, Zuohui Chen, Jinyin Chen, Qi Xuan, Zhen Wang, and Xiaoniu Yang. Understanding the dynamics of dnns using graph modularity. In European Conference on Computer Vision , pages 225–242. Springer, 2022. 20

    2022

  51. [51]

    A generic layer pruning method for signal modulation recognition deep learning models

    Yao Lu, Yutao Zhu, Yuqi Li, Dongwei Xu, Yun Lin, Qi Xuan, and Xiaoniu Yang. A generic layer pruning method for signal modulation recognition deep learning models. IEEE Transactions on Cognitive Communications and Networking , 2024

    2024

  52. [52]

    Reassessing layer pruning in llms: New insights and methods

    Yao Lu, Hao Cheng, Yujie Fang, Zeyu Wang, Jiaheng Wei, Dongwei Xu, Qi Xuan, Xiaoniu Yang, and Zhaowei Zhu. Reassessing layer pruning in llms: New insights and methods. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.15558 , 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  53. [53]

    Can pre-trained models assist in dataset distillation? arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.03295 , 2023

    Yao Lu, Xuguang Chen, Yuchen Zhang, Jianyang Gu, Tianle Zhang, Yifan Zhang, Xiaoniu Yang, Qi Xuan, Kai Wang, and Yang You. Can pre-trained models assist in dataset distillation? arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.03295 , 2023

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  54. [54]

    From LLM-anation to LLM-orchestrator: Coordinating Small Models for Data Labeling

    Yao Lu, Zhaiyuan Ji, Jiawei Du, Yu Shanqing, Qi Xuan, and Tianyi Zhou. From llm-anation to llm-orchestrator: Coordinating small models for data labeling. arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.16393, 2025

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  55. [55]

    RedTest: Towards Measuring Redundancy in Deep Neural Networks Effectively

    Yao Lu, Peixin Zhang, Jingyi Wang, Lei Ma, Xiaoniu Yang, and Qi Xuan. Redtest: Towards measuring redundancy in deep neural networks effectively. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.10507, 2024

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  56. [56]

    Sglp: A similarity guided fast layer partition pruning for compressing large deep models

    Yuqi Li, Yao Lu, Zeyu Dong, Chuanguang Yang, Yihao Chen, and Jianping Gou. Sglp: A similarity guided fast layer partition pruning for compressing large deep models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.14720 , 2024

    arXiv 2024

  57. [57]

    Sepprune: Structured pruning for efficient deep speech separation

    Yuqi Li, Kai Li, Xin Yin, Zhifei Yang, Junhao Dong, Zeyu Dong, Chuanguang Yang, Yingli Tian, and Yao Lu. Sepprune: Structured pruning for efficient deep speech separation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.12079 , 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  58. [58]

    Graph-Based Similarity of Neural Network Representations

    Zuohui Chen, Yao Lu, JinXuan Hu, Wen Yang, Qi Xuan, Zhen Wang, and Xiaoniu Yang. Graph-based similarity of neural network representations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2111.11165, 2021

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  59. [59]

    FCOS: A Two-Stage Recoverable Model Pruning Framework for Automatic Modulation Recognition

    Yao Lu, Tengfei Ma, Zeyu Wang, Zhuangzhi Chen, Dongwei Xu, Yun Lin, Qi Xuan, and Guan Gui. Fcos: A two-stage recoverable model pruning framework for auto- matic modulation recognition. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.21571 , 2025

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  60. [60]

    DUSE: A Data Expansion Framework for Low-resource Automatic Modulation Recognition based on Active Learning

    Yao Lu, Hongyu Gao, Zhuangzhi Chen, Dongwei Xu, Yun Lin, Qi Xuan, and Guan Gui. Duse: A data expansion framework for low-resource automatic modulation recognition based on active learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.12011 , 2025

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  61. [61]

    Sr-init: An interpretable layer pruning method

    Hui Tang, Yao Lu, and Qi Xuan. Sr-init: An interpretable layer pruning method. In ICASSP 2023-2023 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), pages 1–5. IEEE, 2023. 21

    2023

  62. [62]

    Frect: Frequency-augmented convolu- tional transformer for robust time series anomaly detection

    Wenxin Zhang, Ding Xu, Guangzhen Yao, Xiaojian Lin, Renxiang Guan, Chengze Du, Renda Han, Xi Xuan, and Cuicui Luo. Frect: Frequency-augmented convolu- tional transformer for robust time series anomaly detection. In International Con- ference on Intelligent Computing , pages 15–26. Springer, 2025

    work page 2025

  63. [63]

    A-MESS: Anchor based Multimodal Embedding with Semantic Synchronization for Multimodal Intent Recognition

    Yaomin Shen, Xiaojian Lin, and Wei Fan. A-mess: Anchor based multimodal embed- ding with semantic synchronization for multimodal intent recognition. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.19474, 2025

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  64. [64]

    Dual-channel Heterophilic Message Passing for Graph Fraud Detection

    Wenxin Zhang, Jingxing Zhong, Guangzhen Yao, Renda Han, Xiaojian Lin, Zeyu Zhang, and Cuicui Luo. Dual-channel heterophilic message passing for graph fraud detection. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.14205 , 2025

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  65. [65]

    DConAD: A Differencing-based Contrastive Representation Learning Framework for Time Series Anomaly Detection

    Wenxin Zhang, Xiaojian Lin, Wenjun Yu, Guangzhen Yao, Yu Li, Renda Han, Songcheng Xu, Hao Shi, Cuicui Luo, et al. Dconad: A differencing-based contrastive representation learning framework for time series anomaly detection. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.14204, 2025

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  66. [66]

    Combining population genomics and fitness qtls to identify the genetics of local adap- tation in arabidopsis thaliana

    Nicholas Price, Brook T Moyers, Lua Lopez, Jesse R Lasky, J Grey Monroe, Jack L Mullen, Christopher G Oakley, Junjiang Lin, Jon ˚Agren, Daniel R Schrider, et al. Combining population genomics and fitness qtls to identify the genetics of local adap- tation in arabidopsis thaliana. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 115(19):5028–5033, 2018

    work page 2018

  67. [67]

    Identification of polymorphisms associated with drought adaptation qtl in brassica napus by resequencing

    Richard S Fletcher, David Herrmann, Jack L Mullen, Qinfei Li, Daniel R Schrider, Nicholas Price, Junjiang Lin, Kelsi Grogan, Andrew Kern, and John K McKay. Identification of polymorphisms associated with drought adaptation qtl in brassica napus by resequencing. G3: Genes, Genomes, Genetics , 6(4):793–803, 2016

    work page 2016

  68. [68]

    Linking genomic signatures of selection to expression variation and direct evidence of local adaptation

    Nicholas Price, Jack L Mullen, Junjiang Lin, Christina Boucher, and John K McKay. Linking genomic signatures of selection to expression variation and direct evidence of local adaptation. bioRxiv, pages 2020–08, 2020

    work page 2020

  69. [69]

    Radiotherapy plus concomitant and adjuvant temozolomide for glioblastoma

    Roger Stupp, Warren P Mason, Martin J Van Den Bent, Michael Weller, Barbara Fisher, Martin JB Taphoorn, Karl Belanger, Alba A Brandes, Christine Marosi, Ulrich Bogdahn, et al. Radiotherapy plus concomitant and adjuvant temozolomide for glioblastoma. New England journal of medicine , 352(10):987–996, 2005

    work page 2005

  70. [70]

    Glioblastoma: overview of disease and treatment

    Mary Elizabeth Davis. Glioblastoma: overview of disease and treatment. Clinical journal of oncology nursing , 20(5):S2, 2016

    work page 2016

  71. [71]

    Challenges to curing primary brain tumours

    Kenneth Aldape, Kevin M Brindle, Louis Chesler, Rajesh Chopra, Amar Gajjar, Mark R Gilbert, Nicholas Gottardo, David H Gutmann, Darren Hargrave, Eric C Holland, et al. Challenges to curing primary brain tumours. Nature reviews Clinical oncology, 16(8):509–520, 2019. 22

    work page 2019

  72. [72]

    Radiomic profiling of glioblastoma: identifying an imaging predictor of patient survival with improved performance over established clinical and radiologic risk models

    Philipp Kickingereder, Sina Burth, Antje Wick, Michael G¨ otz, Oliver Eidel, Heinz- Peter Schlemmer, Klaus H Maier-Hein, Wolfgang Wick, Martin Bendszus, Alexander Radbruch, et al. Radiomic profiling of glioblastoma: identifying an imaging predictor of patient survival with improved performance over established clinical and radiologic risk models. Radiolog...

    work page 2016

  73. [73]

    Cmat: A multi-agent collaboration tuning framework for enhancing small language models

    Xuechen Liang, Yangfan He, Meiling Tao, Yinghui Xia, Jianhui Wang, Tianyu Shi, Jun Wang, and JingSong Yang. Cmat: A multi-agent collaboration tuning framework for enhancing small language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.01663 , 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  74. [74]

    Enhancing code llms with rein- forcement learning in code generation: A survey

    Junqiao Wang, Zeng Zhang, Yangfan He, Zihao Zhang, Yuyang Song, Tianyu Shi, Yuchen Li, Hengyuan Xu, Kunyu Wu, Xin Yi, et al. Enhancing code llms with rein- forcement learning in code generation: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.20367 , 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  75. [75]

    Human-centric reward optimization for reinforcement learning-based automated driving using large language models

    Ziqi Zhou, Jingyue Zhang, Jingyuan Zhang, Yangfan He, Boyue Wang, Tianyu Shi, and Alaa Khamis. Human-centric reward optimization for reinforcement learning-based automated driving using large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.04135, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  76. [76]

    Reagent-v: A reward-driven multi-agent framework for video understanding

    Yiyang Zhou, Yangfan He, Yaofeng Su, Siwei Han, Joel Jang, Gedas Bertasius, Mohit Bansal, and Huaxiu Yao. Reagent-v: A reward-driven multi-agent framework for video understanding. arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.01300 , 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  77. [77]

    Score: Story coherence and retrieval enhancement for ai narratives

    Qiang Yi, Yangfan He, Jianhui Wang, Xinyuan Song, Shiyao Qian, Xinhang Yuan, Li Sun, Yi Xin, Jingqun Tang, Keqin Li, et al. Score: Story coherence and retrieval enhancement for ai narratives. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.23512 , 2025

    arXiv 2025

  78. [78]

    Consensus recommendations for a standardized brain tumor imaging protocol in clinical trials

    Benjamin M Ellingson, Martin Bendszus, Jerrold Boxerman, Daniel Barboriak, Bradley J Erickson, Marion Smits, Sarah J Nelson, Elizabeth Gerstner, Brian Alexan- der, Gregory Goldmacher, et al. Consensus recommendations for a standardized brain tumor imaging protocol in clinical trials. Neuro-oncology, 17(9):1188–1198, 2015

    work page 2015

  79. [79]

    The 2021 who classification of tumors of the central nervous system: a summary

    David N Louis, Arie Perry, Pieter Wesseling, Daniel J Brat, Ian A Cree, Dominique Figarella-Branger, Cynthia Hawkins, HK Ng, Stefan M Pfister, Guido Reifenberger, et al. The 2021 who classification of tumors of the central nervous system: a summary. Neuro-oncology, 23(8):1231–1251, 2021

    work page 2021

  80. [80]

    Identifying the best machine learning algorithms for brain tumor segmentation, progression assessment, and overall survival prediction in the brats challenge

    Spyridon Bakas, Mauricio Reyes, Andras Jakab, Stefan Bauer, Markus Rempfler, Alessandro Crimi, Russell Takeshi Shinohara, Christoph Berger, Sung Min Ha, Mar- tin Rozycki, et al. Identifying the best machine learning algorithms for brain tumor segmentation, progression assessment, and overall survival prediction in the brats challenge. arXiv preprint arXiv...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

Showing first 80 references.

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 5, 2026.