Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 45 references

A Smooth Phase-Separation Model for Weak-Boundary Segmentation of Homogeneous Structures

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Phase-separation model splits homogeneous regions where image contrast is zero

desk verdict Solid applied-math paper with a genuinely new model and a credible well-posedness proof, but the empirical claims rest on an unspecified distance-prior map and a murky SKI10 test protocol; peer-review it, but require the authors to disclose exactly how D_a is built. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.22053 v1 pith:O7HBDZA5 submitted 2026-07-24 cs.CV math-phmath.MP

Zihan Li , Jiebao Sun , Fanghui Song , Zhichang Guo This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CVmath-phmath.MP MSC 68U1035K5565M1265M70
keywords imagesegmentationCahn–Hilliardphaseseparationsoftmaxrepresentationweakboundaryscalarauxiliaryvariableenergystabilitymedicalimaging
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 Cahn–Hilliard phase-field term, added to a softmax region-fitting energy, can separate adjacent structures with nearly identical intensities and a weak shared boundary, even when the image-driven force is essentially zero near that boundary. The mechanism is phase separation: the double-well potential drives each phase variable toward distinct labels while the gradient penalty keeps a coherent interface, so the contour does not leak or merge when intensity contrast alone would produce no force. The authors support this with a mixed L2–H−1 gradient flow, a proof of existence and uniqueness of weak solutions, and a linear, unconditionally energy-stable SAV–FFT scheme. On 10 SKI10 bone images, the method reaches Dice/IoU 0.9816/0.9639 without any network training and has the most stable HD95 (3.0442 ± 0.4827) among U-Net, TransUNet, Swin-UNet, and MedSegDiff. A training-free variational model that rivals supervised deep networks on boundary precision would matter wherever annotated data are scarce.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Cahn–Hilliard energy per phase, E_CH(u_a) = ∫(ε²/2|∇u_a|² + W(u_a)) dx, with double-well potential W(u_a) = ½ u_a²(u_a−1)². Its variational derivative, −ε²Δu_a + W′(u_a), is the force that keeps driving the phase variables toward 0 or 1 when the softmax data force F_a(U) = λβΦ_a(e_a − ē) degenerates near a weak boundary. The mixed gradient flow ∂_t u_a = −(I−Δ)μ_a couples a direct L2 descent with the fourth-order H−1 regularization of the chemical potential, avoiding the mass conservation of classical Cahn–Hilliard dynamics while preserving higher-order interfacial control. The stabilized SAV splitting with Fourier spectral discretization makes each time step a line

What would settle it

Run the SKI10 segmentation with the distance prior disabled (γ_a = 0) under identical parameters; if the homogeneous bone regions then merge or the contour leaks, the central claim that Cahn–Hilliard supplies the missing separation when the data force vanishes is not supported. A second check: inspect how D_a is constructed—if it derives from ground-truth masks or per-image tuning, the no-training comparison to supervised deep networks is invalid.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that classical region-fitting forces fail for homogeneous-appearance structures because the Chan–Vese data force factorizes as (c1−c2)(2I−c1−c2), so it vanishes when the fitted mean intensities coincide. The paper argues that the Cahn–Hilliard regularization does not merely smooth the evolving interface but actively promotes phase separation: even when the data force F_data ≈ 0 near the desired boundary, the double-well potential and gradient energy continue to push each phase variable toward 0 or 1, maintaining a coherent diffuse interface and preventing the merging of adjacent homogeneous regions. With the softmax representation and a distance-prior map, the model sepa

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the distance-prior map D_a and its weights γ_a are chosen without using the target labels or per-image hand-tuning; if D_a already encodes where each phase should be, the claimed separation is driven by the prior, not by Cahn–Hilliard phase separation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the data-driven force degenerates near a weak boundary, the Cahn–Hilliard term keeps pushing the phase variables toward distinct labels, so adjacent homogeneous structures remain separated instead of merging.
  • The mixed L2–H−1 flow removes the classical Cahn–Hilliard mass-conservation constraint, allowing region sizes to adapt to the image data rather than being fixed by initialization.
  • The linear SAV–FFT scheme is shown to remain stable even at time step τ = 10⁴, so the fourth-order model is computationally practical for large time steps.
  • On the SKI10 tests, the method achieves HD95 = 3.0442 ± 0.4827 without training, with the smallest standard deviation among the compared methods, indicating more consistent boundary localization across test images.
  • The existence and uniqueness theorem guarantees that the proposed gradient-flow evolution is well posed in the natural solution class C([0,T];L²) ∩ L²(0,T;H²_N).

Reading between the lines

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

  • The distance-prior map D_a is never specified in the paper; if it is constructed from the same annotated labels used to train the deep baselines, the 'without network training' comparison is not equal-footing, and the reported separation could be driven by the prior rather than by Cahn–Hilliard phase separation.
  • A direct test of the mechanistic claim is to rerun the SKI10 experiments with γ_a = 0; if separation collapses when the distance prior is disabled, then the double-well phase-separation term alone does not carry the claimed effect.
  • The HD95 stability advantage rests on only 10 test images, so it is suggestive but not evidence of generalizability to other anatomies or imaging modalities.
  • The same mixed-flow, stabilized-SAV construction could be applied to other fourth-order regularizers with the data term held fixed, which would isolate precisely what the double-well potential adds beyond general higher-order smoothing.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a multiphase variational segmentation model that couples a softmax region-fidelity term with Cahn–Hilliard phase-field regularization, and evolves it by a mixed L2–H^{-1} gradient flow. The authors derive a continuous energy dissipation law, prove existence and uniqueness of weak solutions, and construct a stabilized SAV–FFT scheme with an exact discrete modified-energy identity. Experiments on synthetic, noisy, and SKI10 medical images compare the method with CV, RSF, CP-ICTM, MBE, and several supervised deep-learning baselines, reporting competitive Dice/IoU and the smallest HD95 standard deviation. The main open issue is that the distance-prior term D_a, which is load-bearing when intensity contrast degenerates, is never specified in the experimental section.

Significance. If the mathematical results are correct, the paper provides a sound well-posedness and stability analysis for a nontrivial softmax–Cahn–Hilliard segmentation model, and the SAV–FFT scheme is a useful computational contribution. The empirical claim of stable boundary localization is potentially interesting, but its significance depends on whether the distance-prior D_a is a generic, fairly specified input or a form of leakage of target anatomy. The existence, uniqueness, and discrete-stability proofs are detailed and appear technically correct, which is a genuine strength. The paper does not supply code or reproducible parameter tables, and the current abstract overstates the boundary-localization result relative to the table means.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.1, Eq. (8); §5] The distance-prior term γ_a D_a is the only mechanism that breaks label symmetry when (I−c_a)^2 is nearly equal across phases, but the manuscript never specifies how D_a is constructed or what γ_a values are used. The text only says D_a 'encodes spatial prior information' and is treated as a fixed L∞ function. If D_a is built from anatomical knowledge, ground-truth labels, or per-image hand tuning, the comparison with CV/RSF/CP-ICTM and with supervised deep networks in Table 3 is not equal-footing, and the claimed CH-driven weak-boundary separation is not demonstrated. The authors must give the exact construction of D_a, report γ_a, and include an ablation with γ_a=0 (or equivalent) so the role of the CH term is isolated.
  2. [Abstract; §5.5, Table 3] The abstract claims 'improved boundary localization' compared with deep-learning methods, but Table 3 shows mean HD95 = 3.0442 for Ours versus 2.3495 for U-Net and 2.5469 for TransUNet. The data support the more modest claim of the smallest standard deviation (0.4827), not an improvement in mean boundary error. Please rephrase the claim, or provide a paired statistical analysis and a clearly defined notion of 'improvement' (e.g., robustness).
  3. [§5] The experimental setup is not reproducible: no values are reported for λ, γ_a, α, C_0, τ, K, the initialization of U, or the final ε and β used in the SKI10 experiments (Tables 1–2 only report convergence behavior for varying ε and β on a synthetic example). Please provide a complete parameter table and the construction of D_a for every experiment. Without these, the quantitative claims in Table 3 cannot be verified or compared on an equal footing.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Throughout] Some typos and stylistic issues: 'Hence,we gain' in the proof of Theorem 3.9; 'Miyoun Jung and coauthors' is informal; the inline definition of W(ua) should be typeset unambiguously.
  2. [§2.2] The qualitative statement that the CH term is 'active' when F_data≈0 would benefit from a quantitative measure of the relative magnitudes of the CH and data forces near the weak boundary.
  3. [§5.5, Figure 14] The caption reports 'Dice = –, IoU = –, HD95 = –' for CV, RSF, and CP-ICTM. Please state explicitly whether these methods failed to produce a final segmentation, and ensure the displayed segmentation images for these methods are visible and labeled.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central mathematical and numerical results are derived from the stated model without fitting to benchmarks; the unspecified distance-prior D_a is an experimental transparency concern, not a circular derivation.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained and non-circular. The energy functional (Eq. 8) defines the model with explicit terms: softmax region fitting, the Cahn–Hilliard energy, and the prescribed distance-prior maps D_a. All subsequent claims—energy dissipation (Proposition 3.4), existence and uniqueness of weak solutions (Theorems 3.9–3.10), and the discrete modified-energy identity (Theorem 4.1)—are proven from this energy and the stated assumptions (I, D_a ∈ L∞, γ_a ∈ R, ε, β, λ > 0) using standard Galerkin, compactness, Lipschitz, and SAV arguments. No parameter is fitted to the SKI10 test set and then re-labeled as a prediction; ε, β, λ, α, γ_a, τ, and C_0 are hand-set tuning choices, not learned quantities. The ablation in Figure 6 removes the Cahn–Hilliard term while retaining the full data term, so the claimed phase-separation contribution is tested rather than assumed. The self-citations [29,30] are background references for MBE regularization and are not load-bearing; no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from those citations to force the present model. The distance-prior D_a in Eq. (8) is never constructed in Section 5, and if it were derived from ground-truth anatomy or per-image hand tuning, the comparison with training-based deep learning methods would be unfair and the 'without network training' framing would be misleading. However, that is a missing experimental detail / potential data leakage concern, not a case where the paper's prediction is equivalent to its input by construction: D_a is explicitly treated as a fixed L∞ input, not as a fitted parameter relabeled as an output. The central mathematical content therefore does not reduce to its own assumptions, and there is no demonstrated circular step. For that reason the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 9 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The theoretical results rest on standard PDE machinery plus stated L^∞ assumptions on I and D_a; no exotic entities are postulated. The empirical claim rests on nine hand-set parameters/inputs, most critically the distance-prior map D_a whose construction is never reported. No theorem guarantees the steady state is the correct binary segmentation; the paper's practical success therefore depends on unverified modeling choices.

free parameters (9)
  • ε (interface width) = 0.5–8; main runs use 0.5–2
    Controls diffuse-interface thickness; hand-set; ablation (Fig. 7, Table 1) shows convergence stalls for ε ≥ 4.
  • β (softmax sharpness) = 2–40; main runs use 2–10
    Hand-set; ablation (Fig. 8, Table 2) shows 1500 iterations insufficient for β ≥ 20.
  • λ (fidelity weight) = not reported
    Weight of the data term in Eq. (8); no sensitivity study reported.
  • γ_a (distance-prior weights) = not reported
    Controls strength of the D_a term; never reported or ablated, though it directly scales the spatial prior.
  • D_a (distance-prior map per phase) = not reported
    Prescribed function 'encoding spatial preference' (Eq. (8), §3.1); construction unspecified for all synthetic and SKI10 experiments. Load-bearing for label disambiguation when intensities coincide.
  • α (SAV stabilization parameter) = not reported
    Stabilization in L = −ε²Δ + αI (§4.3); value never given; claimed to make A well-conditioned.
  • C_0 (SAV shift constant) = not reported
    Chosen so that E_1(U) + C_0 > 0; value never given.
  • τ (time step) = 0.01–10^4 across tests
    Varied per experiment; Theorem 4.1 guarantees modified-energy stability for any τ, but accuracy at τ=10^4 is only demonstrated visually.
  • K (number of phases) = not reported for SKI10
    Number of phase fields/softmax classes; unstated for the medical experiments; affects the comparison with the 2-class deep networks.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Ω is a bounded C² domain; I, D_a ∈ L^∞(Ω)
    Assumed in Theorem 3.9; needed for the elliptic H² estimate and the boundedness of F_a (§3.3.1).
  • standard math Standard PDE tools: Galerkin approximation, Aubin–Lions, Gagliardo–Nirenberg, Lions–Magenes, Gronwall
    Used throughout §3.3; proofs are sketches and not machine-checked.
  • ad hoc to paper The gradient flow reaches a steady state whose argmax softmax is the correct segmentation
    No convergence-to-steady-state theorem and no guarantee that the steady state is the true label map; §3.1 assumes 'after the gradient flow reaches a steady state', experiments stop at relative change 10⁻⁵ or 1500 iterations (§5.2).
  • ad hoc to paper D_a 'encodes spatial prior information' and is available in a form that does not leak the ground truth
    D_a enters the data term in Eq. (8) and breaks label symmetry when intensities are identical, but its construction in §5 is never described; the fairness of the 'no training' comparison depends on this unstated input pipeline.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Smooth Phase-Separation Model for Weak-Boundary Segmentation of Homogeneous Structures." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/O7HBDZA5

@misc{pith2026260722053,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Smooth Phase-Separation Model for Weak-Boundary Segmentation of Homogeneous Structures},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/O7HBDZA5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.22053}
}
abstract

Segmentation of adjacent structures with similar intensity distributions remains a challenging problem in image analysis, particularly when object boundaries are weak or ambiguous. Under such conditions, classical variational models may suffer from degenerated image-driven forces, leading to boundary leakage or undesired merging of neighboring regions. To address these limitations, we propose a smooth phase-separation variational model based on the Cahn--Hilliard equation for weak-boundary segmentation of homogeneous-appearance structures. The proposed framework integrates softmax-based region fitting with Cahn--Hilliard phase-field regularization to maintain interface discrimination under weak image-driven forces. We further introduce a mixed $L^2-H^{-1}$ gradient flow, which preserves higher-order interfacial regularization while allowing adaptive changes of phase masses, establish the continuous energy dissipation law, and prove the existence and uniqueness of weak solutions in the natural solution class. For numerical computation, we develop a stabilized scalar auxiliary variable (SAV) scheme that is linear, FFT-based, and satisfies a modified discrete energy dissipation law. Numerical experiments on synthetic and medical images demonstrate that the proposed method effectively separates adjacent homogeneous structures across weak boundaries and achieves competitive segmentation accuracy and improved boundary localization compared with representative variational, phase-field, and deep learning methods.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.22053 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Segmentation result and data-driven force of the CV model in a low-contrast case. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Segmentation result and data-driven force of the proposed CH-regularized model in a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Segmentation results obtained with different time steps. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (11 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Modified energy curves obtained with different time steps. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Segmentation of a low-contrast boundary image and the corresponding phase-field [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Ablation study of the Cahn–Hilliard regularization on a low-contrast image. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Segmentation results for different values of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Segmentation results for different values of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Segmentation result of the proposed model on a noisy low-contrast image. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Segmentation result of the proposed Cahn–Hilliard model on a large-scale noisy low [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Segmentation comparison results of different models. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Segmentation comparison results of different models on another image. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Distribution of HD95 values for different segmentation methods on the SKI10 test images. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Visual comparison of different segmentation methods on a representative SKI10 image. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_14.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references

  1. [1]

    Pham, Chenyang Xu, and Jerry L

    Dzung L. Pham, Chenyang Xu, and Jerry L. Prince. Current methods in medical image segmentation.Annual Review of Biomedical Engineering, 2(1):315–337, 2000

    2000

  2. [2]

    J. R. R. Uijlings, K. E. A. Van De Sande, T. Gevers, and A. W. M. Smeulders. Selective Search for Object Recognition.International Journal of Computer Vision, 104(2):154–171, September 2013

    2013

  3. [3]

    Sérgio Pereira, Adriano Pinto, Victor Alves, and Carlos A. Silva. Brain tumor segmentation using convolutional neural networks in MRI images.IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, 35(5):1240–1251, 2016

    2016

  4. [4]

    Elshaera, Jana Lipkova, Sebastian Schlecht, Freba Ahmaddy, Sunil Tatavarty, Marc Bickel, Patrick Bilic, Markus Rempfler, Felix Hofmann, Melvin D

    Patrick Ferdinand Christ, Florian Ettlinger, Felix Grün, Mohamed Ezzeldin A. Elshaera, Jana Lipkova, Sebastian Schlecht, Freba Ahmaddy, Sunil Tatavarty, Marc Bickel, Patrick Bilic, Markus Rempfler, Felix Hofmann, Melvin D. Anastasi, Seyed-Ahmad Ahmadi, Georgios Kaissis, Julian Holch, Wieland Sommer, Rickmer Braren, Volker Heinemann, and Bjoern Menze. Auto...

    2017

  5. [5]

    Computer-aided diagnosis in medical imaging: Historical review, current status and future potential.Computerized Medical Imaging and Graphics, 31(4-5):198–211, June 2007

    Kunio Doi. Computer-aided diagnosis in medical imaging: Historical review, current status and future potential.Computerized Medical Imaging and Graphics, 31(4-5):198–211, June 2007

    2007

  6. [6]

    Gore, and Zhaohua Ding

    Chunming Li, Chiu-Yen Kao, J.C. Gore, and Zhaohua Ding. Minimization of Region-Scalable Fitting Energy for Image Segmentation.IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 17(10):1940– 1949, October 2008

    1940

  7. [7]

    An Active Contour Model for the Segmentation of Images with Intensity Inhomogeneities and Bias Field Estimation.PLOS ONE, 10(4):e0120399, April 2015

    Chencheng Huang and Li Zeng. An Active Contour Model for the Segmentation of Images with Intensity Inhomogeneities and Bias Field Estimation.PLOS ONE, 10(4):e0120399, April 2015

    2015

  8. [8]

    Xuchu Wang, Yanmin Niu, Liwen Tan, and Shao-Xiang Zhang. New Region-Scalable Discrimi- nant and Fitting Energy Functional for Driving Geometric Active Contours in Medical Image Segmentation.Computational and Mathematical Methods in Medicine, 2014:1–13, 2014

    2014

Show all 45 references
  1. [9]

    Le Lu, Dijia Wu, Nathan Lay, David Liu, Isabella Nogues, and Ronald M. Summers. Accurate 3D bone segmentation in challenging CT images: Bottom-up parsing and contextualized optimization. In2016 IEEE Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision (WACV), pages 1–10, Lake ...

    2016

  2. [10]

    Intensity inhomogeneity image segmentation based on the gradient-based spaces and the prior constraint.Applied Mathematical Modelling, 119:605–625, July 2023

    Zhi-Feng Pang, Jinyan Yao, Baoli Shi, and Haohui Zhu. Intensity inhomogeneity image segmentation based on the gradient-based spaces and the prior constraint.Applied Mathematical Modelling, 119:605–625, July 2023

    2023

  3. [11]

    A Threshold Selection Method from Gray-Level Histograms.IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 9(1):62–66, January 1979

    Nobuyuki Otsu. A Threshold Selection Method from Gray-Level Histograms.IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 9(1):62–66, January 1979

    1979

  4. [12]

    Comaniciu and P

    D. Comaniciu and P. Meer. Mean shift: A robust approach toward feature space analysis. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 24(5):603–619, May 2002

    2002

  5. [13]

    Jianbo Shi and J. Malik. Normalized cuts and image segmentation.IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 22(8):888–905, August 2000

    2000

  6. [14]

    Caselles, R

    V. Caselles, R. Kimmel, and G. Sapiro. Geodesic active contours. InProceedings of IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision, pages 694–699, Cambridge, MA, USA, 1995. IEEE Comput. Soc. Press

    1995

  7. [15]

    Optimal approximations by piecewise smooth functions and associated variational problems.Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics, 42(5):577–685, July 1989

    David Mumford and Jayant Shah. Optimal approximations by piecewise smooth functions and associated variational problems.Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics, 42(5):577–685, July 1989

    1989

  8. [16]

    Chan and L.A

    T.F. Chan and L.A. Vese. Active contours without edges.IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 10(2):266–277, February 2001

    2001

  9. [17]

    U-Net: Convolutional Networks for Biomedical Image Segmentation, May 2015

    Olaf Ronneberger, Philipp Fischer, and Thomas Brox. U-Net: Convolutional Networks for Biomedical Image Segmentation, May 2015

    2015

  10. [18]

    Yuille, and Yuyin Zhou

    Jieneng Chen, Yongyi Lu, Qihang Yu, Xiangde Luo, Ehsan Adeli, Yan Wang, Le Lu, Alan L. Yuille, and Yuyin Zhou. TransUNet: Transformers Make Strong Encoders for Medical Image Segmentation, February 2021

    2021

  11. [19]

    Swin-Unet: Unet-like Pure Transformer for Medical Image Segmentation, May 2021

    Hu Cao, Yueyue Wang, Joy Chen, Dongsheng Jiang, Xiaopeng Zhang, Qi Tian, and Manning Wang. Swin-Unet: Unet-like Pure Transformer for Medical Image Segmentation, May 2021

    2021

  12. [20]

    MedSegDiff: Medical Image Segmentation with Diffusion Probabilistic Model

    Junde Wu, Rao Fu, Huihui Fang, Yu Zhang, Yehui Yang, Haoyi Xiong, Huiying Liu, and Yanwu Xu. MedSegDiff: Medical Image Segmentation with Diffusion Probabilistic Model. InMedical Imaging with Deep Learning, volume 227, pages 1623–1639. PMLR, January 2024

    2024

  13. [21]

    QIS : Interactive Segmentation via Quasi- conformal Mappings.SIAM Journal on Imaging Sciences, 18(1):494–525, March 2025

    Han Zhang, Daoping Zhang, and Lok Ming Lui. QIS : Interactive Segmentation via Quasi- conformal Mappings.SIAM Journal on Imaging Sciences, 18(1):494–525, March 2025

    2025

  14. [22]

    J. Lie, M. Lysaker, and Xue-Cheng Tai. A binary level set model and some applications to Mumford-Shah image segmentation.IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 15(5):1171–1181, May 2006

    2006

  15. [23]

    Gore, and Zhaohua Ding

    Chunming Li, Chiu-Yen Kao, John C. Gore, and Zhaohua Ding. Implicit Active Contours Driven by Local Binary Fitting Energy. In2007 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 1–7, Minneapolis, MN, USA, June 2007. IEEE

    2007

  16. [24]

    Image Segmentation with Partial Convexity Shape Prior Using Discrete Conformality Structures.SIAM Journal on Imaging Sciences, 13(4):2105–2139, January 2020

    Chun Yin Siu, Hei Long Chan, and Ronald Lok Ming Lui. Image Segmentation with Partial Convexity Shape Prior Using Discrete Conformality Structures.SIAM Journal on Imaging Sciences, 13(4):2105–2139, January 2020. 33

    2020

  17. [25]

    A Registration-Based Star-Shape Seg- mentation Model and Fast Algorithms.Journal of Scientific Computing, 105(1):1, October 2025

    Daoping Zhang, Xue-Cheng Tai, and Lok Ming Lui. A Registration-Based Star-Shape Seg- mentation Model and Fast Algorithms.Journal of Scientific Computing, 105(1):1, October 2025

    2025

  18. [26]

    Connected-Component Preserving Image Segmentation Using the Iterative Convolution-Thresholding Method.SIAM Journal on Imaging Sciences, 18(3):1904–1928, September 2025

    Lingyun Deng, Litong Liu, Dong Wang, and Xiao-Ping Wang. Connected-Component Preserving Image Segmentation Using the Iterative Convolution-Thresholding Method.SIAM Journal on Imaging Sciences, 18(3):1904–1928, September 2025

    1904

  19. [27]

    Augmented Lagrangian Method, Dual Methods, and Split Bregman Iteration for ROF, Vectorial TV, and High Order Models.SIAM Journal on Imaging Sciences, 3(3):300–339, January 2010

    Chunlin Wu and Xue-Cheng Tai. Augmented Lagrangian Method, Dual Methods, and Split Bregman Iteration for ROF, Vectorial TV, and High Order Models.SIAM Journal on Imaging Sciences, 3(3):300–339, January 2010

    2010

  20. [28]

    A Fast Algorithm for Euler’s Elastica Model Using Augmented Lagrangian Method.SIAM Journal on Imaging Sciences, 4(1):313–344, January 2011

    Xue-Cheng Tai, Jooyoung Hahn, and Ginmo Jason Chung. A Fast Algorithm for Euler’s Elastica Model Using Augmented Lagrangian Method.SIAM Journal on Imaging Sciences, 4(1):313–344, January 2011

    2011

  21. [29]

    Re-initialization-Free Level Set Method via Molecular Beam Epitaxy Equation Regularization for Image Segmentation

    Fanghui Song, Jiebao Sun, Shengzhu Shi, Zhichang Guo, and Dazhi Zhang. Re-initialization-Free Level Set Method via Molecular Beam Epitaxy Equation Regularization for Image Segmentation. Journal of Mathematical Imaging and Vision, 66(5):926–950, October 2024

    2024

  22. [30]

    An Effective Level Set Method With Molecular Beam Epitaxy Regularization for Color-Texture Image Segmentation

    Fanghui Song, Jiebao Sun, Shengzhu Shi, Zhichang Guo, and Boying Wu. An Effective Level Set Method With Molecular Beam Epitaxy Regularization for Color-Texture Image Segmentation. Studies in Applied Mathematics, 155(4):e70128, October 2025

    2025

  23. [31]

    Snakes: Active contour models

    Michael Kass, Andrew Witkin, and Demetri Terzopoulos. Snakes: Active contour models. International Journal of Computer Vision, 1(4):321–331, January 1988

    1988

  24. [32]

    Unsupervised Deep Learning Meets Chan-Vese Model.CSIAM Transactions on Applied Mathematics, 3(4):662–691, November 2022

    Dihan Zheng, Chenglong Bao, Zuoqiang Shi, Haibin Ling, and Kaisheng Ma. Unsupervised Deep Learning Meets Chan-Vese Model.CSIAM Transactions on Applied Mathematics, 3(4):662–691, November 2022

    2022

  25. [33]

    Tahmasebi, and Abdol-Reza Mansouri

    Jeff Calder, Amir M. Tahmasebi, and Abdol-Reza Mansouri. A variational approach to bone segmentation in CT images. In Benoit M. Dawant and David R. Haynor, editors,SPIE Medical Imaging, page 79620B, Lake Buena Vista, Florida, March 2011

    2011

  26. [34]

    Bertozzi, Selim Esedoglu, and Alan Gillette

    Andrea L. Bertozzi, Selim Esedoglu, and Alan Gillette. Inpainting of Binary Images Using the Cahn–Hilliard Equation.IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 16(1):285–291, January 2007

    2007

  27. [35]

    Jana Lipková, Markus Rempfler, Patrick Christ, John Lowengrub, and Bjoern H. Menze. Automated Unsupervised Segmentation of Liver Lesions in CT scans via Cahn-Hilliard Phase Separation, April 2017

    2017

  28. [36]

    Cahn and John E

    John W. Cahn and John E. Hilliard. Free Energy of a Nonuniform System. I. Interfacial Free Energy.The Journal of Chemical Physics, 28(2):258–267, February 1958

    1958

  29. [37]

    David J. Eyre. Unconditionally Gradient Stable Time Marching the Cahn-Hilliard Equation. MRS Proceedings, 529:39, 1998

    1998

  30. [38]

    The scalar auxiliary variable (SAV) approach for gradient flows.Journal of Computational Physics, 353:407–416, January 2018

    Jie Shen, Jie Xu, and Jiang Yang. The scalar auxiliary variable (SAV) approach for gradient flows.Journal of Computational Physics, 353:407–416, January 2018. 34

    2018

  31. [39]

    A New Class of Efficient and Robust Energy Stable Schemes for Gradient Flows.SIAM Review, 61(3):474–506, January 2019

    Jie Shen, Jie Xu, and Jiang Yang. A New Class of Efficient and Robust Energy Stable Schemes for Gradient Flows.SIAM Review, 61(3):474–506, January 2019

    2019

  32. [40]

    Morrison, Martin A

    Tobias Heimann, Bryan J. Morrison, Martin A. Styner, Marc Niethammer, and Simon K. Warfield. Segmentation of knee images: A grand challenge. InMICCAI Workshop on Medical Image Analysis for the Clinic: A Grand Challenge, pages 207–214, 2010

    2010

  33. [41]

    Vese, and Alan L

    Miyoun Jung, Ginmo Chung, Ganesh Sundaramoorthi, Luminita A. Vese, and Alan L. Yuille. Sobolev gradients and joint variational image segmentation, denoising, and deblurring. In Charles A. Bouman, Eric L. Miller, and Ilya Pollak, editors,IS&T/SPIE Electronic Imaging, page 72460...

    2009

  34. [42]

    Coarsening kinetics from a variable- mobility Cahn-Hilliard equation: Application of a semi-implicit Fourier spectral method

    Jingzhi Zhu, Long-Qing Chen, Jie Shen, and Veena Tikare. Coarsening kinetics from a variable- mobility Cahn-Hilliard equation: Application of a semi-implicit Fourier spectral method. Physical Review E, 60(4):3564–3572, October 1999

    1999

  35. [43]

    EfficientNumericalMethodsforComputing the Stationary States of Phase Field Crystal Models.SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing, 42(6):B1350–B1377, January 2020

    KaiJiang, WeiSi, ChangChen, andChenglongBao. EfficientNumericalMethodsforComputing the Stationary States of Phase Field Crystal Models.SIAM Journal on Scientific Computing, 42(6):B1350–B1377, January 2020

    2020

  36. [44]

    Convergence Analysis for Bregman Iterations in Minimizing a Class of Landau Free Energy Functionals.SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis, 62(1):476–499, February 2024

    Chenglong Bao, Chang Chen, Kai Jiang, and Lingyun Qiu. Convergence Analysis for Bregman Iterations in Minimizing a Class of Landau Free Energy Functionals.SIAM Journal on Numerical Analysis, 62(1):476–499, February 2024

    2024

  37. [45]

    Metrics for evaluating 3D medical image segmentation: Analysis, selection, and tool.BMC Medical Imaging, 15(1):29, December 2015

    Abdel Aziz Taha and Allan Hanbury. Metrics for evaluating 3D medical image segmentation: Analysis, selection, and tool.BMC Medical Imaging, 15(1):29, December 2015. 35

    2015

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.