mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Cross-Model Agreement as a Deployment-Time Reliability Signal for Automatic Polyp Segmentation

arXiv 2609.10495 ↗First posted 9 Sep 2026cs.CV cs.LGcited by 1

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

In real-time colonoscopy, ground-truth annotations are unavailable at inference, so polyp segmentation models can fail silently. We propose Referee-Based Quality Estimation (RBQE), a reference-free framework measuring agreement between a primary segmentation model and an independently trained referee on the same image. RBQE is evaluated on a standardized 1,223-image external benchmark drawn from four public datasets, using four referee configurations chosen to separate two design axes: referee independence and architectural diversity. Using a common Agreement Dice descriptor, a same-architecture referee differing from the primary model only in random initialization already yields a useful reliability signal (ROC-AUC = 0.923), showing that independent training alone is sufficient. Cross-architecture referees improve further: SegFormer-B0 achieves the strongest performance (ROC-AUC = 0.960), significantly outperforming the same-architecture control and UNet++, and exceeding a representative Test-Time Augmentation baseline by 0.055 ROC-AUC under an identical protocol, whereas a prompt-coupled MedSAM referee underperforms despite maximal architectural diversity. Because empty-mask agreement is trivially separable, we also report a restricted evaluation excluding such cases: ROC-AUC falls to 0.876 (SegFormer-B0, 1,046 images) and 0.783 (same-architecture control, 975 images), yet RBQE's margin over both baselines widens on this identical subset. RBQE additionally increases the mean Dice of retained predictions as low-agreement cases are progressively rejected, supporting selective prediction, and requires only one additional deterministic referee forward pass at inference. Our study therefore supports cross-model agreement as a practical, interpretable reliability framework for automated polyp segmentation.

Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 13 of its 25 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 9 Sep 2026.

Builds on

13 of 25 references.

References · 13

  1. 2015Dropout as a Bayesian Approximation: Representing Model Uncertainty in Deep Learningcited by 4,448
  2. 2016Simple and Scalable Predictive Uncertainty Estimation using Deep Ensemblescited by 3,926
  3. 2021SegFormer: Simple and Efficient Design for Semantic Segmentation with Transformerscited by 2,940
  4. 2018UNet++: A Nested U-Net Architecture for Medical Image Segmentationcited by 1,525
  5. 2017Selective Classification for Deep Neural Networkscited by 852
  6. 2019Kvasir-SEG: A Segmented Polyp Datasetcited by 589
  7. 2019Deep Ensembles: A Loss Landscape Perspectivecited by 443
  8. 2018Aleatoric uncertainty estimation with test-time augmentation for medical image segmentation with convolutional neural networkscited by 280
  9. 2016A Benchmark for Endoluminal Scene Segmentation of Colonoscopy Imagescited by 221
  10. 2019Assessing Reliability and Challenges of Uncertainty Estimations for Medical Image Segmentationcited by 75
  11. 2017Reverse Classification Accuracy: Predicting Segmentation Performance in the Absence of Ground Truthcited by 35
  12. 2018Towards safe deep learning: accurately quantifying biomarker uncertainty in neural network predictionscited by 25
1 more
  1. 2018Real-time Prediction of Segmentation Qualitycited by 23

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2026: 1.

1 paper.