REVIEW 1 cited by
Generalize Polyp Segmentation via Inpainting across Diverse Backgrounds and Pseudo-Mask Refinement
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
Generalize Polyp Segmentation via Inpainting across Diverse Backgrounds and Pseudo-Mask Refinement
read the original abstract
Inpainting lesions within different normal backgrounds is a potential method of addressing the generalization problem, which is crucial for polyp segmentation models. However, seamlessly introducing polyps into complex endoscopic environments while simultaneously generating accurate pseudo-masks remains a challenge for current inpainting methods. To address these issues, we first leverage the pre-trained Stable Diffusion Inpaint and ControlNet, to introduce a robust generative model capable of inpainting polyps across different backgrounds. Secondly, we utilize the prior that synthetic polyps are confined to the inpainted region, to establish an inpainted region-guided pseudo-mask refinement network. We also propose a sample selection strategy that prioritizes well-aligned and hard synthetic cases for further model fine-tuning. Experiments demonstrate that our inpainting model outperformed baseline methods both qualitatively and quantitatively in inpainting quality. Moreover, our data augmentation strategy significantly enhances the performance of polyp segmentation models on external datasets, achieving or surpassing the level of fully supervised training benchmarks in that domain. Our code is available at https://github.com/497662892/PolypInpainter.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
Vis-CoT: A Human-in-the-Loop Framework for Interactive Visualization and Intervention in LLM Chain-of-Thought Reasoning
An interactive chain-of-thought editor with prune and graft interventions reports large accuracy gains, but without error bars, code, or a comparison to existing editing tools.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.