Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 34 references

M-Net: Integrating Spectral Features and Physical Field Operators into Deep Learning for Medical Image Segmentation

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read M-Net claims that adding three hand-built mathematical priors—a centered matrix condition number, divergence and a curl-like boundary operator, and an attention gate that fuses them—to U-Net raises Dice scores on liver, kidney, and brain…

desk verdict A coherent, honest write-up of a useful math-feature fusion whose headline gains rest on a baseline and a comparison table that need verification before being taken at face value. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.12196 v1 pith:D3XPP3JY submitted 2026-08-12 cs.CV cs.AI

Jing Zhu , Ye Wang , Fumin Wang This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CVcs.AI
keywords medicalimagesegmentationU-Netconditionnumbersingularvaluedecompositiondivergencecurl-likeoperatorattentiongateinductivebias
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper argues that medical images carry mathematical structure that purely data-driven networks leave unused, and that feeding that structure in explicitly improves segmentation. It builds M-Net by adding three priors to U-Net: a continuous condition-number map of centered local pixel matrices, divergence and a discrete curl-like boundary operator from gradient fields, and a Math-Attention Gate that uses these maps to weight skip-connection features. On the LiTS, KiTS, and BraTS benchmarks the paper reports Dice scores of 78.42 percent, 76.15 percent, and 83.67 percent, beating its U-Net baseline by 12.37, 3.52, and 5.55 percentage points. If the comparisons hold, this would mean explicit analytic priors can be inserted into standard segmentation networks at small computational cost.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the centered local pixel matrix $\bar{P}_{x,y} = P_{x,y} - \mu_{x,y} \cdot \mathbf{1}_{3\times3}$, whose condition number $\kappa = \sigma_1/(\sigma_3+\epsilon)$ is computed by batched SVD over every $3\times3$ neighborhood. Mean centering is what makes the feature meaningful: a constant-intensity region becomes the zero matrix instead of a rank-1 matrix, so its $\kappa$ reads as approximately zero. Two fixed-weight operators, divergence (the Laplacian) and a discrete curl-like mixed-derivative inconsistency measure, supply complementary edge and extrema signals. The Math-Attention Gate $F_{\text{out}} = F_{\text{cnn}} \odot \sigma(W_c * F_{\text{cnn}} + W_m * F_{\text{math}} + b)$ turns those maps into spatial weights at each skip connection, preserving the priors through the decoder.

What would settle it

Independently retrain a standard 2D U-Net on LiTS with the same protocol and a competitive training recipe; if the baseline reaches roughly 75 to 80 Dice, then check whether M-Net's advantage over that baseline shrinks toward the ablation-level gains rather than the headline 12.37 points. A second check is to substitute a published, peer-reviewed binary-invertibility feature for the unpublished manuscript and see whether the claimed 2.14-point advantage over it persists.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the condition number of the mean-centered 3x3 pixel neighborhood behaves as a continuous, differentiable texture ill-conditioning prior: it is near zero in homogeneous tissue, large at organ-tissue boundaries, and invariant to intensity scaling, while a raw uncentered condition number would wrongly flag flat regions as complex. The paper also introduces a discrete curl-like descriptor that measures mixed-derivative inconsistency at non-smooth edges, and shows that gating CNN features by these mathematical maps at every skip connection outperforms simple concatenation. On the paper's own terms, explicit spectral and vector-calculus priors are complementary to learned features and improve segmentation consistently across CT and MRI, across liver, kidney, and brain tumor tasks. Ablations attribute 2.14 Dice points to replacing binary invertibility with the continuous condition number and 1.45 points to the attention gate over concatenation.

Load-bearing premise

The reported gains presuppose that the U-Net baseline was trained as fairly as M-Net, yet the baseline-reproduction protocol in Section 4.2 does not cover the RIS-UNet row and the binary-invertibility comparison rests on an unpublished same-author manuscript.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the reported gains are real, the condition-number prior can be attached to any encoder-decoder backbone with only a few percent parameter overhead, since the spectral and field modules are fixed-weight.
  • Continuous spectral features should be preferred over binary invertibility features, since the ablation attributes a 2.14 Dice point gain to that replacement.
  • Math-derived attention maps generalize across organs and modalities: the paper's cross-dataset experiments show M-Net outperforms U-Net by an average of 4.84 Dice points in transfer settings.
  • The differentiable condition-number map can be inserted at multiple scales; the paper's placement ablation says gating at all skip levels beats shallow-only by 4.27 points and deep-only by 8.84 points.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the reported 12.37-point LiTS gain is measured against a 66.05 Dice U-Net baseline, and if a stronger 2D U-Net baseline were used the relative gain would likely shrink even if the mathematical features still help.
  • Editorial inference: the centered condition-number map is essentially a hand-crafted textural edge prior, and it could be combined with other analytic descriptors, such as local rank, eigenvalue spread, or Hessian-based shape filters, to form a library of differentiable priors for the same gating mechanism.
  • Editorial inference: a testable extension is to feed the same three maps into a transformer-based segmentation head, where the math-derived attention gate would interact with learned self-attention.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes M-Net, a U-Net variant that integrates hand-crafted mathematical features—the condition number of centered local 3x3 pixel matrices, divergence of the image gradient field, and a discrete curl-like boundary irregularity operator—into a medical image segmentation network. The mathematical features are computed in a differentiable, GPU-accelerated manner and fused with CNN features at skip connections through a proposed Math-Attention Gate (MAG). The authors report Dice improvements over a U-Net baseline on LiTS, KiTS, and BraTS (+12.37%, +3.52%, +5.55%), ablation results isolating each component, cross-dataset generalization experiments, and statistical significance tests over three training seeds. The paper also provides a code repository link and a detailed training protocol.

Significance. If the empirical results are reproducible, the paper would provide useful evidence that cheap analytic image descriptors can complement learned representations in segmentation, with only +2.4% parameter overhead and +6.2% FLOP overhead. Strengths include the explicit mathematical definitions, the release of code, the multi-dataset and multi-modality evaluation, and the attempt at a reproduction protocol. The paper's central quantitative claim, however, rests on baseline comparisons whose fairness is not yet established, particularly on LiTS, and on an ablation against an unpublished same-author baseline. The theoretical propositions are mostly standard SVD facts, but one stated invariance property is mathematically incorrect as written.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4.4 / §5.4 (Evaluation Metrics and Absolute DSC Interpretation)] The exact definition of the reported DSC is ambiguous and load-bearing for the main claim. Section 4.4 gives the standard voxel-level overlap formula, but Section 5.4 states that 'the DSC is computed over all axial slices including those with minimal or no liver presence,' which can be read as per-slice averaging over empty and non-empty slices. If DSC is a per-slice mean, empty slices contribute zero whenever any foreground is predicted, and both the absolute LiTS U-Net baseline (66.05) and the +12.37% gain depend heavily on the slice-sampling protocol. The manuscript must state unambiguously whether DSC is a global count or a per-slice average, and should report both versions (or per-case volumetric Dice) so that the reader can separate a genuine segmentation improvement from a metric artifact. The paper's own 'Absolute DSC interpretation' paragraph acknowledges the low absolute number but does not resolve this ambiguity.
  2. [§4.2 / Table 2 / Table 5] RIS-UNet appears in the LiTS results (76.84 in Table 2, 76.79±0.48 in Table 5) and is the strongest non-M-Net method, but it is entirely absent from the baseline reproduction protocol in Section 4.2, which describes only U-Net, Attention U-Net, U-Net++, nnU-Net 2D, and TransUNet. No citation is provided for RIS-UNet, and no implementation details are given. Because the claimed advantage over the strongest baseline is unverifiable, the authors must either add a complete reproduction protocol and reference for RIS-UNet or remove it from the tables.
  3. [§3.1.1, Proposition 3.1(2)] The stated scale-invariance property, κ(c·P) = κ(P) for c ≠ 0, is false as written because the additive stabilization ε in Eq. (4) does not scale with c. For σ_min comparable to ε and |c| ≪ 1, the denominator of κ(cP) is dominated by ε rather than by |c|σ_min, so κ(cP) ≈ |c|σ_max/ε, which is not equal to κ(P). The proof text claims the factor 'cancels in the ratio,' but that cancellation requires the stabilization term to scale as well. This is a concrete mathematical error in the paper's theoretical framework; it can be fixed by using a multiplicative stabilization such as κ = σ_max/(σ_min + εσ_max) or by stating an approximate invariance with explicit error bounds in terms of σ_min/ε.
  4. [Table 3 (Ablation Study)] The 'Binary Invertibility' baseline that underlies the claimed 2.14% advantage of the continuous condition number is defined only by reference to reference [32], which is an unpublished same-author manuscript ('In preparation, 2024'). The manuscript does not describe how the binary invertibility feature is computed, normalized, or fused, so the reader cannot reproduce the ablation or judge whether the comparison is fair. The authors should either provide a full description of the binary invertibility feature and its integration protocol, or remove this comparison from the ablation table.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§3.4] The text contains an unresolved cross-reference: 'The curl (Eq. 9) is computed via a two-step procedure (Section??).' This should be fixed before publication.
  2. [§4.3] The augmentation description contains a typographical error: '±15ř' should read '±15°' or '±15 degrees.'
  3. [Table 1] The header entry 'T est' contains an obvious spacing typo and should be corrected to 'Test.'
  4. [§5.6 and Figure 2] The text refers to 'kappa input concat' and 'kappa-MAG all skips' without defining these names; the caption and text should explain that 'kappa' refers to the condition-number feature map.
  5. [§4.4 / §5.4] The evaluation protocol states that HD95 is computed on the full 3D volume while DSC may be computed per slice; if that is indeed the intended reading, the inconsistency should be explicitly acknowledged and justified in the metrics section.
  6. [Reference [32]] Reference [32] is listed as 'In preparation, 2024'; using an unpublished manuscript as a comparison baseline without providing its implementation details makes the corresponding ablation and contribution claims difficult to assess.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the mathematical features are computed directly from input images and never encode the target labels; the only self-citation is the unpublished binary-invertibility baseline [32], which is an ablation comparator rather than a load-bearing premise.

full rationale

M-Net's claimed derivation chain is self-contained. The condition number map is defined by Eq. (4) from the SVD of the centered local pixel matrix (Eqs. 1-3), the divergence and discrete curl-like maps are fixed convolutional operators on image gradients (Eqs. 7-11), and the Math-Attention Gate is a learned gating fusion shown in Eq. (12). None of these quantities is fitted to, or defined in terms of, the segmentation ground truth; labels enter only through the standard cross-entropy and Dice losses (Eqs. 13-16). The theoretical properties in Proposition 3.1 are routine SVD facts cited to an external textbook [33], not to the authors' own work. The central claim that M-Net beats an identically configured U-Net is therefore an empirical comparison, not a definitional or statistical identity. The only self-citation of note is [32], an unpublished same-author manuscript that supplies the binary invertibility feature used as one ablation comparator in Table 3. That comparison is not part of the main derivation and does not determine the reported U-Net improvements; it carries a small verification burden because the baseline is not independently reproducible from this paper, but it does not make the central result circular. The low absolute LiTS numbers and the undocumented RIS-UNet reproduction are correctness and reproducibility concerns, not circularity.

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

The central contribution is empirical. The paper adds no new physical entities or fitted parameters; the free parameters are standard hyperparameters and stabilization constants. The unproven load-bearing inputs are domain assumptions that the handcrafted features are useful for segmentation and that the baselines were reproduced fairly.

free parameters (6)
  • epsilon in condition number (Eq. 4) = 1e-6
    Added to sigma_min for numerical stability; changes kappa in homogeneous regions but not in textured regions. Chosen by hand.
  • epsilon in Dice loss (Eq. 15) = 1e-6
    Numerical stabilizer; not a fitted scientific parameter.
  • loss weights w0 and w1 (Eq. 14) = w0=0.02, w1=1.0
    Chosen by hand to counteract class imbalance; affects absolute Dice values and applies to all compared methods.
  • local neighborhood size = 3x3
    Fixed size for the centered local pixel matrix; the paper notes adaptive sizes as future work in Section 6.5.
  • channel aggregation = arithmetic mean
    Multi-channel condition number and field operator maps are averaged (Eq. 6); the paper does not explore other aggregations.
  • training schedule hyperparameters = lr=1e-4, wd=1e-5, batch 16/8, 300 epochs, patience 50
    Standard choices, but early stopping on validation Dice can influence the reported best results.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math SVD is continuous with respect to matrix perturbations (Stewart and Sun [33]).
    Used to prove continuity of the condition number map in Proposition 3.1.
  • standard math Mixed partial derivatives of smooth scalar fields commute (Clairaut's theorem).
    Invoked in Remark 3.2 to clarify that the proposed discrete curl-like descriptor is not a continuous curl of a gradient.
  • domain assumption The condition number of a mean-centered local pixel matrix is a meaningful and useful measure of local texture complexity for organ and tumor boundaries.
    This is the main inductive-bias hypothesis; it is supported by ablations, not by a derivation.
  • domain assumption Divergence and the discrete curl-like operator, computed with Sobel and 1D finite differences, capture focal intensity extrema and boundary non-smoothness that help segmentation.
    Assumed in the architecture; evidence is the ablation gain, which is correlational.
  • domain assumption The benchmark datasets, official splits, and annotations are used correctly and are comparable across methods.
    All quantitative conclusions depend on this; the paper does not provide raw data or verification scripts.
  • domain assumption The compared baselines (especially RIS-UNet and the unpublished [32]) were reproduced fairly.
    The relative improvements are differences against these baselines; without protocols or artifacts for RIS-UNet and [32], this is an unverified premise.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of M-Net: Integrating Spectral Features and Physical Field Operators into Deep Learning for Medical Image Segmentation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/D3XPP3JY

@misc{pith2026260812196,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: M-Net: Integrating Spectral Features and Physical Field Operators into Deep Learning for Medical Image Segmentation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/D3XPP3JY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.12196}
}
read the original abstract

Purpose: Deep learning-based medical image segmentation has achieved remarkable success, yet purely data-driven approaches often fail to exploit the rich mathematical structure inherent in medical images. We investigate whether explicit mathematical inductive biases, specifically matrix spectral analysis and vector calculus operators, can enhance segmentation beyond data-driven learning alone. Methods: We propose M-Net (Math-Augmented Network), which integrates three complementary mathematical priors into U-Net: (1) continuous spectral features derived from the condition number of centered local pixel matrices, providing a differentiable measure of texture ill-conditioning; (2) physical field operators (divergence and a discrete curl-like boundary irregularity operator) computed from image gradient fields, capturing focal intensity extrema and edge non-smoothness; and (3) a Math-Attention Gate (MAG) that adaptively fuses mathematical features with CNN-extracted deep features at skip connections. Results: Experiments on three benchmarks (LiTS, KiTS, and BraTS) show that M-Net achieves Dice scores of 78.42%, 76.15%, and 83.67%, outperforming baseline U-Net by 12.37%, 3.52%, and 5.55% on liver, kidney, and brain tumor segmentation, respectively. Ablations reveal that the condition-number feature contributes a 2.14% gain over binary invertibility features, while MAG adds 1.45% over simple concatenation. Conclusion: M-Net establishes that mathematical inductive biases provide effective complementary information for medical image segmentation. The continuous condition-number feature offers superior gradient information over discrete alternatives, and MAG preserves these priors throughout the network. This work opens avenues for integrating linear algebra and vector calculus into deep architectures for medical imaging.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.12196 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of the proposed M-Net architecture. The Spectral Feature Extraction [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Validation DSC curves across all model variants. (Left) Main comparison: U-Net [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Qualitative comparison on three representative LiTS test cases showing [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Condition-number prior visualization on real LiTS CT data. (a) CT slice from the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages

  1. [32]

    Leveraging matrix invertibility as features in neural networks for medical image segmentation.In preparation, 2024

    Zhu, J., Wang, Y., & Wang, F. Leveraging matrix invertibility as features in neural networks for medical image segmentation.In preparation, 2024

    work page 2024

  2. [1]

    E., et al

    Litjens, G., Kooi, T., Bejnordi, B. E., et al. A survey on deep learning in medical image analysis.Medical Image Analysis, 42:60–88, 2017

    work page 2017

  3. [2]

    F., Li, H

    Bilic, P., Christ, P. F., Li, H. B., et al. The liver tumor segmentation benchmark (LiTS). Medical Image Analysis, 84:102680, 2023

    work page 2023

  4. [3]

    H., et al

    Heller, N., Isensee, F., Maier-Hein, K. H., et al. The state of the art in kidney and kidney tumor segmentation in contrast-enhanced CT imaging: Results of the KiTS19 challenge. Medical Image Analysis, 67:101821, 2021

    work page 2021

  5. [4]

    H., Jakab, A., Bauer, S., et al

    Menze, B. H., Jakab, A., Bauer, S., et al. The multimodal brain tumor image segmentation benchmark (BRATS).IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, 34(10):1993–2024, 2015

    work page 1993

  6. [5]

    U-Net: Convolutional networks for biomedical image segmentation

    Ronneberger, O., Fischer, P., & Brox, T. U-Net: Convolutional networks for biomedical image segmentation. InMICCAI, pp. 234–241. Springer, 2015

    work page 2015

  7. [6]

    Attention U-Net: Learning where to look for the pancreas.arXiv preprint arXiv:1804.03999, 2018

    Oktay, O., Schlemper, J., Le Folgoc, L., et al. Attention U-Net: Learning where to look for the pancreas.arXiv preprint arXiv:1804.03999, 2018

    arXiv 2018

  8. [7]

    Zhou, Z., Siddiquee, M. M. R., Tajbakhsh, N., & Liang, J. UNet++: A nested U-Net architecture for medical image segmentation. InDLMIA@MICCAI, pp. 3–11. Springer, 2018

    work page 2018

Show all 34 references
  1. [8]

    F., Kohl, S

    Isensee, F., Jaeger, P. F., Kohl, S. A. A., Petersen, J., & Maier-Hein, K. H. nnU-Net: A self-configuring method for deep learning-based biomedical image segmentation.Nature Methods, 18(2):203–211, 2021

    2021

  2. [9]

    TransUNet: Transformers make strong encoders for medical image segmentation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2102.04306, 2021

    Chen, J., Lu, Y., Yu, Q., et al. TransUNet: Transformers make strong encoders for medical image segmentation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2102.04306, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Swin-UNet: Unet-like pure transformer for medical image segmentation

    Cao, H., Wang, Y., Chen, J., et al. Swin-UNet: Unet-like pure transformer for medical image segmentation. InECCV, pp. 205–218. Springer, 2022

    2022

  4. [11]

    InCVPR, pp

    Long, J., Shelhamer, E., &Darrell, T.Fullyconvolutionalnetworksforsemanticsegmentation. InCVPR, pp. 3431–3440, 2015

    2015

  5. [12]

    S., Brox, T., & Ronneberger, O

    Çiçek, Ø., Abdulkadir, A., Lienkamp, S. S., Brox, T., & Ronneberger, O. 3D U-Net: Learning dense volumetric segmentation from sparse annotation. InMICCAI, pp. 424–432. Springer, 2016

    2016

  6. [13]

    Milletari, F., Navab, N., & Ahmadi, S. A. V-Net: Fully convolutional neural networks for volumetric medical image segmentation. In3DV, pp. 565–571. IEEE, 2016

    2016

  7. [14]

    Zhu et al

    Dosovitskiy, A., Beyer, L., Kolesnikov, A., etal.Animageisworth16x16words: Transformers for image recognition at scale.arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.11929, 2020. Zhu et al. — M-Net: Math-Augmented Network 22

    2010 arXiv

  8. [15]

    Swin Transformer: Hierarchical vision transformer using shifted windows

    Liu, Z., Lin, Y., Cao, Y., et al. Swin Transformer: Hierarchical vision transformer using shifted windows. InICCV, pp. 10012–10022, 2021

    2021

  9. [16]

    UNETR: Transformers for 3D medical image segmentation

    Hatamizadeh, A., Tang, Y., Nath, V., et al. UNETR: Transformers for 3D medical image segmentation. InWACV, pp. 574–584, 2022

    2022

  10. [17]

    MISSFormer: An effective medical image segmentation transformer.arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.07162, 2022

    Huang, X., Deng, Z., Li, D., Yuan, X., & Fu, Y. MISSFormer: An effective medical image segmentation transformer.arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.07162, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  11. [18]

    DcT: A dice loss based cross-attention vision transformer for medical image segmentation

    Liu, Y., Sangineto, E., Bi, W., Sebe, N., & Wang, W. DcT: A dice loss based cross-attention vision transformer for medical image segmentation. InICME, pp. 1–6. IEEE, 2022

    2022

  12. [19]

    Squeeze-and-excitation networks

    Hu, J., Shen, L., & Sun, G. Squeeze-and-excitation networks. InCVPR, pp. 7132–7141, 2018

    2018

  13. [20]

    Y., & So Kweon, I

    Woo, S., Park, J., Lee, J. Y., & So Kweon, I. CBAM: Convolutional block attention module. InECCV, pp. 3–19, 2018

    2018

  14. [21]

    K., Rauland, A., et al

    Azad, R., Aghdam, E. K., Rauland, A., et al. UNETR++: Delving into efficient and accurate 3D medical image segmentation. InMICCAI, pp. 679–689. Springer, 2023

    2023

  15. [22]

    E., Kevrekidis, I

    Karniadakis, G. E., Kevrekidis, I. G., Lu, L., et al. Physics-informed machine learning. Nature Reviews Physics, 3:422–440, 2021

    2021

  16. [23]

    Raissi, M., Perdikaris, P., & Karniadakis, G. E. Physics-informed neural networks: A deep learning framework for solving forward and inverse problems involving nonlinear partial differential equations.Journal of Computational Physics, 378:686–707, 2019

    2019

  17. [24]

    A volumetric transformer for accurate 3D tumor segmentation in CT scans.Applied Sciences, 12(11):5642, 2022

    Peiris, H., Hayat, M., Chen, Z., et al. A volumetric transformer for accurate 3D tumor segmentation in CT scans.Applied Sciences, 12(11):5642, 2022

    2022

  18. [25]

    Source-relaxed domain adaptation for image segmentation

    Bateson, M., Kervadec, H., Dolz, J., et al. Source-relaxed domain adaptation for image segmentation. InMICCAI, pp. 490–499. Springer, 2021

    2021

  19. [26]

    Liu, K., & Cheng, Y. Q. Singular value decomposition for texture analysis. InSPIE, Vol. 2298, pp. 407–417, 1994

    1994

  20. [27]

    Texture classification based on spectrum and rank features

    Hafiane, A., Seetharaman, G., & Zavidovique, B. Texture classification based on spectrum and rank features. InICIP, pp. 3422–3426. IEEE, 2019

    2019

  21. [28]

    C., Sheikh, H

    Wang, Z., Bovik, A. C., Sheikh, H. R., & Simoncelli, E. P. Image quality assessment: from error visibility to structural similarity.IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, 13(4):600– 612, 2004

    2004

  22. [29]

    Invariant measures of image features from phase information.PhD Thesis, University of Western Australia, 1996

    Kovesi, P. Invariant measures of image features from phase information.PhD Thesis, University of Western Australia, 1996

    1996

  23. [30]

    Horn, B. K. P., & Schunck, B. G. Determining optical flow.Artificial Intelligence, 17(1- 3):185–203, 1981

    1981

  24. [31]

    I., Osher, S., & Fatemi, E

    Rudin, L. I., Osher, S., & Fatemi, E. Nonlinear total variation based noise removal algorithms. Physica D, 60(1-4):259–268, 1992

    1992

  25. [33]

    W., & Sun, J

    Stewart, G. W., & Sun, J. G.Matrix Perturbation Theory. Academic Press, 1990

    1990

  26. [34]

    2.5D lightweight RIU-Net for automatic liver and tumor segmentation from CT.Biomedical Signal Processing and Control, 75:103567, 2022

    Lv, P., Wang, J., & Wang, H. 2.5D lightweight RIU-Net for automatic liver and tumor segmentation from CT.Biomedical Signal Processing and Control, 75:103567, 2022

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.