2017
DOI: 10.48550/arxiv.1707.08935
|View full text |Cite
Preprint
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Anisotropic EM Segmentation by 3D Affinity Learning and Agglomeration

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
9
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
3
2

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(9 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
9
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Moreover, the dense gradient of the encoded-neighborhood branch, which focuses on locally correct predictions, nicely complements the sparse gradient 5 of the encoded-neighborhood branch, which focuses on predictions that are consistent in a larger neighborhood. We expect this [34] 3D-Watershed 0.566 LFC [22] Z-Watershed+Agglo 0.616…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 98%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Moreover, the dense gradient of the encoded-neighborhood branch, which focuses on locally correct predictions, nicely complements the sparse gradient 5 of the encoded-neighborhood branch, which focuses on predictions that are consistent in a larger neighborhood. We expect this [34] 3D-Watershed 0.566 LFC [22] Z-Watershed+Agglo 0.616…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…Predicting Pixel-Pair Affinities -Instance-aware edge detection has experienced recent progress due to deep learning, both on natural images and biological data [8,18,15,32,28,34,22,3]. Among these methods, the most recent ones also predict long-range affinities between pixels and not only direct-neighbor relationships [8,18,15].…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…[81] 0.322 GASP Max. + Constraints 0.324 GASP Sum [36] 0.334 GASP Average + Constraints 0.563 THRESH 1.521 [26] 0.276 CRU-Net [85] 0.566 LFC [64] 0.616 predict graph edge weights, relying not only on information derived from affinity maps but also raw data and shape information. Note that the test volumes contain several imaging artifacts that make segmentation particularly challenging and might profit from more robust edge statistics of super-pixel based approaches.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Our watershed code was adopted from [35]. Similar to other traditional agglomerating-techniques, Neuroproof trains a random forest on merge decisions of neighboring objects [40,41,42]. These baseline methods were fed with the same high-quality border maps used in our 3C reconstruction system.…”
Section: Snemi3d Datasetmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For the second test, we were granted permission to reconstruct a recently collected rat cortex dataset of the Lichtman group at Harvard (ECS). This test allowed the comparison of 3C to the excellent agglomerative approach of [42] (4th on SNEMI3D), while using exactly their U-Net [50] border predictions as inputs to our 3C network. On the test set our NRI score was 0.86, compared to 0.73 for the agglomeration pipeline.…”
Section: Harvard Rodent Cortex Datasets (Ecs S1)mentioning
confidence: 99%