Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 46 references

From Reconstruction to Interpretation: Zero-Setup Multi-Phase Segmentation of X-ray Tomography Data

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A single neural model can segment unseen X-ray scans with zero setup, no prompts, and no retraining, by learning six universal structural masks.

desk verdict A practical zero-setup segmentation pipeline for synchrotron micro-CT, but the headline generalization claim is not actually tested: the held-out slices come from the same scans used for training. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.12175 v3 pith:CS2GQQXA submitted 2026-07-13 cs.CV cs.AI

Pradyumna Elavarthi , Arun J. Bhattacharjee , Harrison Lisabeth , Anca Ralescu , Petrus H. Zwart , Dilworth Parkinson , Elizabeth G. Clark This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CVcs.AI
keywords X-raymicrotomographysemanticsegmentationmulti-labelzero-setupdeploymentmaterial-agnosticmasksConvNeXt-UNetbeamlinediagnosticsclass-awaresampling
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 argues that the main bottleneck in synchrotron X-ray tomography — turning reconstructed volumes into understandable structural labels — can be solved by a single pretrained model that needs no user input at deployment. Instead of training one model per material, the authors define a fixed vocabulary of six regions that occur in nearly any absorption-contrast scan: background, sample, bright inclusions, dark-gray phase, light-gray phase, and porosity. They train a ConvNeXt-UNet on 25 annotated slices from five scans and report that it segments held-out and additional unseen scans accurately (accuracy 0.995, macro F1 0.992) and far better than intensity thresholding. If the claim holds, beamline scientists could inspect morphology, porosity, and density variations during an experiment rather than months later.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing component is the material-agnostic mask preparation strategy: a fixed six-channel multi-label decomposition (background, sample, bright, dark-gray, light-gray, porosity) derived from intensity thresholding, connected-component cleanup, and voxel filling. Around this sit a class-aware cropping mapper that forces training patches to contain non-background structure, percentile-jittering normalization for contrast invariance, median-frequency-balanced binary cross-entropy loss, and a ConvNeXt-UNet — a U-shaped convolutional network with large-kernel ConvNeXt blocks pretrained on natural images — whose 1x1 head outputs the six masks. The paper's argument is that the representati

What would settle it

Run the released model on a synchrotron micro-CT scan with five or more visually distinct density phases and check whether the extra phase is silently folded into one of the three gray-level masks; alternatively, on any four-phase unseen sample, compare the predicted porosity mask against expert manual porosity annotations and show systematic disagreement.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that multi-phase segmentation of synchrotron micro-CT data can be made zero-setup by redefining the task: instead of learning material-specific labels, the network learns to predict six overlapping structural masks that hold across materials. The authors demonstrate that a single model trained on only 25 slices from five scans generalizes to unseen rock and alloy samples without retraining or prompting, and that this setup outperforms conventional thresholding, particularly for porosity. They locate the source of generalization in the mask representation and training strategy rather than the network architecture, since three different backbo

Load-bearing premise

The framework's central assumption is that every sample encountered in practice can be represented by the fixed six-category scheme, and that samples with more than four density phases — which the paper concedes are misallocated — are rare enough not to undermine deployment.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Beamline users could receive a useful first-pass segmentation within minutes of reconstruction, letting them judge scan quality, porosity, and morphology while the experiment is still running.
  • The generated masks can seed manual refinement or fine-tuning of material-specific models, potentially cutting analysis time from months to days.
  • Because three different backbones give nearly equal scores, the mask taxonomy and training pipeline should keep working as segmentation architectures improve.
  • The framework substantially outperforms manual intensity thresholding on low-contrast boundaries and pores, the regions where thresholding fails most.
  • The model can be applied as-is to scans from different beamlines or imaging conditions, with the caveat that samples must have at most four density phases.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural next test the paper does not run: deploy the model live at a beamline for a full experiment cycle and measure how often scientists accept the first-pass masks without editing; that would quantify the practical 'diagnostic-level' claim.
  • The fixed six-class scheme suggests a ceiling: any sample with five or more distinct attenuation phases will have the extra phases silently merged into the three gray-level classes. An extension would be an adaptive or open-set head that flags 'unseen phase' rather than forcing a merge.
  • The near-parity among backbones implies the remaining error is taxonomy error, not network error; improving the mask definitions (for example, adding a crack-specific class or resolving the porosity/background ambiguity) may yield larger gains than changing the network.
  • Because natural-image-pretrained features transfer to X-ray attenuation contrast, the underlying visual cues (edges, intensity gradients, texture) are generic; this hints the same six-mask strategy could be tested on lab-based CT or neutron tomography, where the attenuation physics differs but the structural vocabulary is similar.
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 presents a "zero-setup" framework for multi-phase segmentation of synchrotron X-ray micro-CT data. A material-agnostic mask preparation strategy decomposes reconstructed slices into six semantic classes (background, sample, bright, dark-gray, light-gray, porosity) using Dragonfly-based intensity thresholding with connected-component and filling refinements. A ConvNeXt-UNet with a multi-label BCE loss, median-frequency balancing, and class-aware cropping is trained on 20 slices from five ALS 8.3.2 scans and evaluated on five held-out slices from the same scans. The reported accuracy is 0.995 and macro F1 is 0.992; the model is compared with manual thresholding on one basalt slice, and additional datasets are shown qualitatively in supplementary material. The authors claim the framework can be applied directly to previously unseen scans without retraining or user prompting, enabling near-real-time beamline diagnostics.

Significance. If the central claim were supported by the evaluation, the framework would be a practical contribution to synchrotron beamline workflows: it offers a clear, reproducible mask taxonomy, a lightweight multi-label architecture, and a useful class-aware sampling strategy. The manuscript's strengths include the open-source code (GitHub), the explicit multi-label decomposition, the comparison of three architectures under identical training conditions, and an unusually candid statement of the four-phase limitation in Section 3. However, the quantitative evidence does not currently support the "zero-setup transfer to new scans" claim: the held-out test slices come from the same scans used for training, so the reported 0.995/0.992 metrics measure within-scan slice reproducibility, not generalization to unseen scans. The paper's value for the claimed deployment scenario is therefore not yet established.

major comments (4)
  1. [Table 1 and Section 2.1 / Section 3] The evaluation protocol is the load-bearing weakness. For each of the five scans/materials, four slices are used for training and one additional slice from the same scan is held out for testing. Thus all five test slices share the same reconstructed volume, acquisition conditions, attenuation/contrast distribution, and likely spatial autocorrelation as the training slices. This design can demonstrate interpolation to nearby slices, but it does not support the abstract and conclusion claims that the framework "can be applied directly to new scans" or "previously unseen datasets." A high F1 on same-scan slices is exactly what a network that has memorized the scan's intensity statistics would achieve. To support the central claim, the authors should provide leave-one-scan-out evaluation (train on four scans, test on the fifth) or a quantitative test on genuinely held-out scans from differen
  2. [Table 2, Fig. 7] The claim that the framework "substantially outperforms conventional intensity-based thresholding" rests on a single representative basalt slice. One slice cannot establish the relative performance across the material variety claimed in the paper. In addition, the thresholding protocol is not specified beyond "manual histogram-based intensity thresholding," so the baseline may be arbitrarily weak. A fair comparison should report thresholding results across all five test slices (or on a defined set of slices) and should describe the threshold-selection procedure. This is particularly important because the ground-truth masks themselves are produced by intensity thresholding in Dragonfly (Section 2.2); without this additional evidence, the comparison to thresholding is at once expected and difficult to interpret.
  3. [Section 2.2] The ground-truth masks are defined using intensity thresholding, largest-connected-component cleanup, and voxel filling. The compared baseline is also intensity-based thresholding. Consequently, the model may simply be learning a spatially regularized version of the thresholding procedure used to create the labels, and the reported F1 may reflect agreement with that protocol rather than "physically meaningful" phases. The manuscript states the masks were "manually" annotated, but the amount and nature of manual refinement is not described. To substantiate the "material-agnostic" and "diagnostic-level" wording, the authors should either quantify the manual refinement or validate a subset of masks against independent expert annotations (or complementary characterization such as SEM/XRD phase maps). At minimum, the text should explicitly acknowledge that the semantic taxonomy is defined by
  4. [Section 3 and Supplementary Fig. S1] The qualitative results on additional datasets are presented as evidence of generalization, but they are not quantified and the figure caption indicates that in some samples the six-class scheme is not directly respected. For example, for fiber-reinforced cement paste the caption describes green matrix, pink unhydrated grains, yellow fibers, and blue porosity, which are not obviously the six declared classes. If the model is mapping its six labels to these colors, the mapping should be stated; if the overlay uses different colors, the figure should be aligned with the described taxonomy. Without per-class accuracy, overlap, or at least a labeled comparison against a reference, these examples cannot be used to support the zero-setup transfer claim. Adding quantitative metrics for these additional datasets, or an explicit statement that they are illustrative only, would clarify the evidenc
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 2.4.4] The equations for class frequency (Eq. 1) and median-frequency balancing (Eq. 2) are poorly typeset: the symbols 𝑝𝑐, 𝑓𝑐, and 𝑤𝑐 are rendered with superscript/subscript fragments broken across lines, and the epsilon term is not defined. Please rewrite these equations cleanly.
  2. [Table 1] The table formatting is inconsistent (e.g., the Split column contains free text and the first row has "4/1 Train/Test" while the total row mixes counts and labels). Please use clear columns for train/test counts and material names.
  3. [Section 3] The reported aggregate accuracy of 0.995 is pixel accuracy dominated by background. The macro F1 of 0.992 is more informative, but there is no per-class or per-test-slice breakdown. Reporting per-class F1 for each test slice would make the result reproducible and would allow readers to see whether, for example, porosity and bright-region F1 are stable or are driven by one slice.
  4. [Section 2.4.2] The text cites reference [8] (Valanarasu and Patel, "UNeXt") for the ConvNeXt-UNet architecture, but this reference describes an MLP-based network. Please cite the actual ConvNeXt [28] and U-Net [19] sources, or add a separate citation for the specific ConvNeXt-UNet implementation.
  5. [Section 2.4.1] The dynamic percentile jittering bounds are p_low ~ U(0.01,1.5) and p_high ~ U(98.5,99.99). Since 1.5% and 98.5% are not symmetric, it would be helpful to state whether these are chosen empirically and whether they apply to the 32-bit TIFF intensities before clipping. Also clarify how the normalized single-channel image is converted to three RGB channels.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the segmentation framework is trained and evaluated empirically on reconstructed slices, with no derived quantity equal to its input by construction.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is an empirical deep-learning pipeline: Section 2.2 constructs ground-truth masks using Dragonfly with initial intensity thresholding, connected-component refinement, and voxel filling, and the ConvNeXt-UNet is trained with BCE loss to reproduce these masks. The reported held-out F1/accuracy therefore measure the network's fidelity to that labeling scheme, not a quantity that is identical to the labels by construction. The comparison against manual thresholding (Section 3, Table 2) is also meaningful because manual thresholding is a separate, simpler algorithm rather than the label-generation procedure itself. The only mild concern is that the ground-truth labels are themselves intensity-derived, so the model is learning a refined version of an intensity-based taxonomy; however, the paper explicitly describes manual refinement and the network can exploit spatial/textural context, so the prediction is not statistically forced. The self-citations to [35]-[37] are used only for qualitative mineral-phase interpretations and do not carry the central claim. The same-scan held-out evaluation (Table 1) is a legitimate external-validity or overfitting concern about the zero-setup generalization claim, but it is not circularity: the paper does not define the test quantity in terms of the training fit, nor does any fitted parameter get renamed as a prediction. No uniqueness theorem or prior author work is invoked to forbid alternatives. The framework's breadth is a stated design assumption, not a result derived from itself.

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

Everything rests on a curated label definition and a 20-slice training set; the paper contributes a label scheme and training recipe, not new physical quantities.

free parameters (4)
  • Class-frequency weights w_c (median frequency balancing) = Derived from empirical pixel frequencies across 20 training slices (Eq. 1-2)
    These weights directly control the BCE loss for each mask class; they are computed from the training distribution.
  • Percentile jittering bounds for normalization = p_low ~ U(0.01, 1.5), p_high ~ U(98.5, 99.99)
    Chosen by hand to make the model contrast-invariant; affects every training patch.
  • Crop/patch size = 1024x1024
    Hand-selected patch size used for both training crops and inference; affects receptive field and class balance.
  • Training length = 15,000 iterations on A100
    Training stopping point; no ablation or early-stopping analysis is provided.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Dragonfly threshold-based annotations are correct ground truth for the six semantic classes
    Section 2.2: initial intensity thresholding plus connected-component/voxel-fill; no validation by XRD, EDS, or expert consensus.
  • domain assumption Six-class material-agnostic taxonomy is sufficient for arbitrary tomography datasets
    Section 2.2 defines bright/light/dark/porosity as universal; Section 3 acknowledges >4 density phases cannot be represented.
  • domain assumption ImageNet-1K pretrained ConvNeXt features transfer to grayscale X-ray micro-CT
    Section 2.4.3: initialization with ImageNet-1K weights; no random-init ablation.
  • domain assumption One held-out slice per scan represents the range of imaging conditions
    Section 2.1 Table 1: 4/1 split per material; no multi-slice/multi-scan uncertainty assessment.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of From Reconstruction to Interpretation: Zero-Setup Multi-Phase Segmentation of X-ray Tomography Data." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CS2GQQXA

@misc{pith2026260712175,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: From Reconstruction to Interpretation: Zero-Setup Multi-Phase Segmentation of X-ray Tomography Data},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CS2GQQXA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.12175}
}
read the original abstract

X-ray tomography enables nondestructive characterization of material microstructures, while advances in micro-CT imaging have accelerated volumetric data acquisition and reconstruction. However, rapid interpretation remains limited by image segmentation, which often requires manual thresholding, user prompting, or material-specific model training. We present a zero-setup framework for multi-phase segmentation of synchrotron X-ray tomography data that generates interpretable masks for previously unseen datasets without user input or retraining during deployment. The framework combines a material-agnostic mask preparation strategy with a pretrained semantic segmentation network. It represents commonly occurring structural regions as background, sample, bright, dark-gray, light-gray, and porosity masks. Unlike conventional deep learning pipelines that require dataset-specific annotations and retraining, the proposed framework can be applied directly to new scans and produce diagnostic-level segmentations within minutes of reconstruction. This enables rapid assessment of scan quality, sample morphology, porosity, and attenuation variations during ongoing beamline experiments. The generated masks can later be manually refined or used to fine-tune application-specific models when greater accuracy or material-specific labeling is required. Evaluation on held-out synchrotron micro-CT images and qualitative testing on additional datasets demonstrate consistent and physically meaningful segmentations across varying samples and imaging conditions. The framework also substantially outperforms conventional intensity-based thresholding. By connecting high-speed reconstruction with immediate interpretation, the approach supports near-real-time beamline feedback and scalable AI-assisted scientific imaging workflows.

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Using X-ray tomography, the 3D morphology and distribution of different phases, regions of interest and defects such as pores, cracks and fractures can be analyzed [4]

    Introduction X-ray tomography is a non-destructive imaging technique widely used for studying the 3D microstructure of materials across diverse scientific disciplines such as geosciences, material science, biosciences and archaeology [1], [2], [3]. Using X-ray tomography, the 3D morphology and distribution of different phases, regions of interest and defe...

  2. [2]

    The annotated dataset consisted of 25 reconstructed 2D slices selected from five tomography scans/material systems

    Methodology 2.1 Data acquisition The images used for training our models were selected from multiple scans at X-ray micro tomography beamline 8.3.2 at the Advanced Light Source, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. The annotated dataset consisted of 25 reconstructed 2D slices selected from five tomography scans/material systems. Twenty slices were used ...

  3. [3]

    Results and Discussion To evaluate the performance of the proposed segmentation framework, we computed the F1 scores [34] across the test set for different architectures. The proposed ConvNeXt-UNet model achieved the strongest overall performance, with an accuracy of 0.995 and a macro F1 score of 0.992, indicating highly consistent segmentation across the...

  4. [4]

    Conclusion In this work, we presented a zero-setup deployment framework for rapid multi-phase segmentation of synchrotron X-ray tomographic imaging data. The proposed approach combines a material-agnostic mask preparation strategy, multi-label semantic segmentation, class-aware sampling, and domain-robust preprocessing to produce diagnostic-level segmenta...

  5. [5]

    We also thank Dr

    Acknowledgements The authors thank Anyka Bergeson-Keller and Elly Shatsala of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Benite Ishimwe and Stuart McElhany of the University of California, Berkeley, and Qinxin Hu of the University of California, Santa Cruz, for contributing data used in this work. We also thank Dr. Xiaoya Chong, a research scientist from Phot...

  6. [6]

    Data Availability The datasets analysed during the current study are not publicly available as they are part of unpublished research but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request

  7. [7]

    Code availability The underlying code for this study is available in Github and can be accessed via this link: https://github.com/pradyumnae/convnext-unet-segmentation

  8. [8]

    X-ray-transmission computed tomography,

    References [1] E. C. McCullough and J. T. Payne, “X-ray-transmission computed tomography,” Med. Phys., vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 85–98, 1977, doi: 10.1118/1.594381

    doi:10.1118/1.594381 1977

Show all 46 references
  1. [9]

    X-ray microtomography of biological tissues using laboratory and synchrotron sources,

    J. C. Elliott, D. K. Bowen, S. D. Dover, and S. T. Davies, “X-ray microtomography of biological tissues using laboratory and synchrotron sources,” Biol. Trace Elem. Res., vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 219–227, Aug. 1987, doi: 10.1007/BF02796634

    1987 doi

  2. [10]

    An introduction to the application of X-ray microtomography to the three-dimensional study of igneous rocks,

    D. R. Baker et al., “An introduction to the application of X-ray microtomography to the three-dimensional study of igneous rocks,” Lithos, vol. 148, pp. 262–276, Sep. 2012, doi: 10.1016/j.lithos.2012.06.008

    2012 doi

  3. [11]

    Kirkendall pore evolution during interdiffusion and homogenization of titanium-coated nickel microwires,

    A. J. Bhattacharjee, A. R. Yost, D. Erdeniz, D. C. Dunand, and A. E. Paz Y Puente, “Kirkendall pore evolution during interdiffusion and homogenization of titanium-coated nickel microwires,” Intermetallics, vol. 134, p. 107199, Jul. 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.intermet.2021.107199

    2021

  4. [12]

    M. Voltolini et al., “The emerging role of 4D synchrotron X-ray micro-tomography for climate and fossil energy studies: five experiments showing the present capabilities at beamline 8.3.2 at the Advanced Light Source,” J. Synchrotron Radiat., vol. 24, no. 6, pp. 1237–1249, Nov...

    2017 doi

  5. [13]

    AI@ALS Workshop Report: Machine Learning Needs at the Advanced Light Source,

    D. Y. Parkinson et al., “AI@ALS Workshop Report: Machine Learning Needs at the Advanced Light Source,” Synchrotron Radiat. News, vol. 37, no. 4, pp. 49–64, Jul. 2024, doi: 10.1080/08940886.2024.2391258

    2024

  6. [14]

    A workflow for segmenting soil and plant X-ray computed tomography images with deep learning in Google’s Colaboratory,

    D. A. Rippner et al., “A workflow for segmenting soil and plant X-ray computed tomography images with deep learning in Google’s Colaboratory,” Front. Plant Sci., vol. 13, 2022, doi: 10.3389/fpls.2022.893140

    2022

  7. [15]

    UNeXt: MLP-Based Rapid Medical Image Segmentation Network,

    J. M. J. Valanarasu and V. M. Patel, “UNeXt: MLP-Based Rapid Medical Image Segmentation Network,” in Medical Image Computing and Computer Assisted Intervention – MICCAI 2022, Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland, 2022, pp. 23–33, doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-16443-9_3

    2022 doi

  8. [16]

    Loss weightings for improving imbalanced brain structure segmentation using fully convolutional networks,

    T. Sugino, T. Kawase, S. Onogi, T. Kin, N. Saito, and Y. Nakajima, “Loss weightings for improving imbalanced brain structure segmentation using fully convolutional networks,” Healthcare, vol. 9, no. 8, p. 938, Jul. 2021, doi: 10.3390/healthcare9080938

    2021 doi

  9. [17]

    Semantic segmentation of small objects and modeling of uncertainty in urban remote sensing images using deep convolutional neural networks,

    M. Kampffmeyer, A.-B. Salberg, and R. Jenssen, “Semantic segmentation of small objects and modeling of uncertainty in urban remote sensing images using deep convolutional neural networks,” in 2016 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops (CVPRW), La...

    2016 doi

  10. [18]

    A review on image segmentation techniques,

    N. R. Pal and S. K. Pal, “A review on image segmentation techniques,” Pattern Recognit., vol. 26, no. 9, pp. 1277–1294, Sep. 1993, doi: 10.1016/0031-3203(93)90135-J

    1993 doi

  11. [19]

    A threshold selection method from gray-level histograms,

    N. Otsu, “A threshold selection method from gray-level histograms,” IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern., vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 62–66, Jan. 1979, doi: 10.1109/TSMC.1979.4310076

    1979

  12. [20]

    Various image segmentation techniques: A review,

    D. Kaur and Y. Kaur, “Various image segmentation techniques: A review,” Int. J. Comput. Sci. Mobile Comput., vol. 3, no. 5, pp. 809–814, May 2014

    2014

  13. [21]

    Statistical region merging,

    R. Nock and F. Nielsen, “Statistical region merging,” IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell., vol. 26, no. 11, pp. 1452–1458, Nov. 2004, doi: 10.1109/TPAMI.2004.110

    2004 doi

  14. [22]

    R. C. Gonzalez and R. E. Woods, Digital Image Processing, 2nd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA: Prentice Hall, 2002

    2002

  15. [23]

    Deep watershed transform for instance segmentation,

    M. Bai and R. Urtasun, “Deep watershed transform for instance segmentation,” in 2017 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), Honolulu, HI, USA: IEEE, Jul. 2017, pp. 2858–2866, doi: 10.1109/CVPR.2017.305

    2017 doi

  16. [24]

    Threshold selection based on cluster analysis,

    S. H. Kwon, “Threshold selection based on cluster analysis,” Pattern Recognit. Lett., vol. 25, no. 9, pp. 1045–1050, Jul. 2004, doi: 10.1016/j.patrec.2004.03.001

    2004 doi

  17. [25]

    Insight into 3D micro-CT data: exploring segmentation algorithms through performance metrics,

    T. Perciano et al., “Insight into 3D micro-CT data: exploring segmentation algorithms through performance metrics,” J. Synchrotron Radiat., vol. 24, no. 5, pp. 1065–1077, Sep. 2017, doi: 10.1107/S1600577517010955

    2017 doi

  18. [26]

    U-Net: Convolutional networks for biomedical image segmentation,

    O. Ronneberger, P. Fischer, and T. Brox, “U-Net: Convolutional networks for biomedical image segmentation,” in Medical Image Computing and Computer-Assisted Intervention – MICCAI 2015, Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2015, pp. 234–241, doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-24574-4_28

    2015 doi

  19. [27]

    Fully convolutional networks for semantic segmentation,

    J. Long, E. Shelhamer, and T. Darrell, “Fully convolutional networks for semantic segmentation,” in 2015 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), Boston, MA, USA: IEEE, Jun. 2015, pp. 3431–3440, doi: 10.1109/CVPR.2015.7298965

    2015

  20. [28]

    ImageJ2,

    “ImageJ2,” ImageJ Wiki. Accessed: Nov. 21, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://imagej.github.io/software/imagej2/index

    2025

  21. [29]

    Montreal, QC, Canada: Object Research Systems

    Object Research Systems (ORS), Dragonfly. Montreal, QC, Canada: Object Research Systems. Accessed: Nov. 21, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://www.theobjects.com/dragonfly

    2025

  22. [30]

    Image segmentation using deep learning: A survey,

    S. Minaee, Y. Boykov, F. Porikli, A. Plaza, N. Kehtarnavaz, and D. Terzopoulos, “Image segmentation using deep learning: A survey,” IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell., vol. 44, no. 7, pp. 3523–3542, Jul. 2022, doi: 10.1109/TPAMI.2021.3059968

    2022

  23. [31]

    U-Net and its variants for medical image segmentation: A review of theory and applications,

    N. Siddique, S. Paheding, C. P. Elkin, and V. Devabhaktuni, “U-Net and its variants for medical image segmentation: A review of theory and applications,” IEEE Access, vol. 9, pp. 82031–82057, 2021, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3086020

    2021

  24. [32]

    An efficient interactive multi-label segmentation tool for 2D and 3D medical images using fully connected conditional random field,

    R. Li and X. Chen, “An efficient interactive multi-label segmentation tool for 2D and 3D medical images using fully connected conditional random field,” Comput. Methods Programs Biomed., vol. 213, p. 106534, Jan. 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.cmpb.2021.106534

    2022

  25. [33]

    Every annotation counts: Multi-label deep supervision for medical image segmentation,

    S. Reis, C. Seibold, A. Freytag, E. Rodner, and R. Stiefelhagen, “Every annotation counts: Multi-label deep supervision for medical image segmentation,” in 2021 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), Nashville, TN, USA: IEEE, Jun. 2021, pp. 9527...

    2021

  26. [34]

    Class-balanced random patch training to address class imbalance in tiling-based farmland classification,

    Y. Bae and Y. Ban, “Class-balanced random patch training to address class imbalance in tiling-based farmland classification,” Appl. Sci., vol. 15, no. 13, p. 7056, Jan. 2025, doi: 10.3390/app15137056

    2025 doi

  27. [35]

    A ConvNet for the 2020s,

    Z. Liu, H. Mao, C.-Y. Wu, C. Feichtenhofer, T. Darrell, and S. Xie, “A ConvNet for the 2020s,” in 2022 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), New Orleans, LA, USA: IEEE, Jun. 2022, pp. 11966–11976, doi: 10.1109/CVPR52688.2022.01167

    2022

  28. [36]

    Deep residual learning for image recognition,

    K. He, X. Zhang, S. Ren, and J. Sun, “Deep residual learning for image recognition,” in 2016 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), Las Vegas, NV, USA: IEEE, Jun. 2016, pp. 770–778, doi: 10.1109/CVPR.2016.90

    2016 doi

  29. [37]

    Aggregated residual transformations for deep neural networks,

    S. Xie, R. Girshick, P. Dollár, Z. Tu, and K. He, “Aggregated residual transformations for deep neural networks,” in 2017 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), Honolulu, HI, USA: IEEE, Jul. 2017, pp. 5987–5995, doi: 10.1109/CVPR.2017.634

    2017 doi

  30. [38]

    Feature pyramid networks for object detection,

    T.-Y. Lin, P. Dollár, R. Girshick, K. He, B. Hariharan, and S. Belongie, “Feature pyramid networks for object detection,” in 2017 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), Honolulu, HI, USA: IEEE, Jul. 2017, pp. 936–944, doi: 10.1109/CVPR.2017.106

    2017 doi

  31. [39]

    Gaussian error linear units (GELUs),

    D. Hendrycks and K. Gimpel, “Gaussian error linear units (GELUs),” arXiv:1606.08415, 2016

    2016 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Learning deep latent space for multi-label classification,

    C.-K. Yeh, W.-C. Wu, W.-J. Ko, and Y.-C. F. Wang, “Learning deep latent space for multi-label classification,” in Proc. AAAI Conf. Artif. Intell., vol. 31, no. 1, 2017, doi: 10.1609/aaai.v31i1.10769

    2017 doi

  33. [41]

    Measures of the amount of ecologic association between species,

    L. R. Dice, “Measures of the amount of ecologic association between species,” Ecology, vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 297–302, 1945, doi: 10.2307/1932409

    1945 doi

  34. [42]

    Hydro-mechanical measurements of sheared crystalline rock fractures with applications for EGS Collab Experiments 1 and 2,

    M. Meng et al., “Hydro-mechanical measurements of sheared crystalline rock fractures with applications for EGS Collab Experiments 1 and 2,” J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth, vol. 127, no. 2, p. e2021JB023000, 2022, doi: 10.1029/2021JB023000

    2022 doi

  35. [43]

    Fracture evolution in multimineral systems: The role of mineral composition, flow rate, and fracture aperture heterogeneity,

    H. Deng, C. Steefel, S. Molins, and D. DePaolo, “Fracture evolution in multimineral systems: The role of mineral composition, flow rate, and fracture aperture heterogeneity,” ACS Earth Space Chem., vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 112–124, Feb. 2018, doi: 10.1021/acsearthspacechem.7b00130

    2018 doi

  36. [44]

    Correlative X-ray micro-nanotomography with scanning electron microscopy at the Advanced Light Source,

    A. J. Bhattacharjee, H. P. Lisabeth, D. Parkinson, and A. MacDowell, “Correlative X-ray micro-nanotomography with scanning electron microscopy at the Advanced Light Source,” J. Synchrotron Radiat., vol. 31, no. 6, pp. 1561–1570, Nov. 2024, doi: 10.1107/S1600577524009305

    2024 doi

  37. [45]

    Your ViT is secretly an image segmentation model,

    T. Kerssies, N. Cavagnero, A. Hermans, N. Norouzi, G. Averta, B. Leibe, G. Dubbelman, and D. de Geus, “Your ViT is secretly an image segmentation model,” in 2025 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR), 2025

    2025

  38. [46]

    DINOv2: Learning robust visual features without supervision,

    M. Oquab et al., “DINOv2: Learning robust visual features without supervision,” arXiv:2304.07193, 2023. Supplementary Supplementary Fig. S1. Original reconstructed images and their corresponding mask overlays for different micro CT samples. (a) Titanium PTL with green and yell...

    2023 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.